← Back to ClaimsClaim 6 of 15
Claim #6

Breach of Express Contract

32%
Confidence: 17% - 47%
Model Predictions
GPT-5.2
35%
Gemini 2 Flash
35%
Grok 4.1
35%
Claude Opus 4.5
25%
View by Model
Probability Timeline(Consensus)
63%42%20%
Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1
Oct 31, 2025 order 57%
Motion for Relief Denied (order)
Denial of a motion for relief from a pretrial order is a procedural matter that doesn't directly impact the merits of the breach of contract claim. It maintains the status quo.
Source: Docket #348
Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +2% 57%
Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)
An order compelling Sutskever to comply with a subpoena could potentially lead to the discovery of crucial evidence related to the contract claim, increasing its probability of success. Sutskever's testimony could shed light on the founding agreements and promises.
Source: Docket #339
Sep 22, 2025 order 55%
Discovery Dispute Orders (order)
Orders resolving discovery disputes have a neutral impact unless they significantly impact the evidence available to prove the contract claim. Assuming routine discovery rulings, the probability remains unchanged.
Source: Docket #276, #278
▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)
Aug 12, 2025 order 55%
ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)
The dismissal of Counts III, XX, and XXI WITH PREJUDICE does not directly impact Count 6 (Breach of Express Contract). The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims is also unrelated to the contract claim.
Source: Docket #228
Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -1% 55%
Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)
Granting the motion to strike in part suggests some of the plaintiff's allegations were deemed insufficient or irrelevant. This slightly weakens the overall case and, consequently, the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #222
Jul 25, 2025 order 56%
Case Schedule Modified (order)
Modifying the case schedule for discovery has a neutral impact. It's a procedural adjustment that doesn't directly affect the merits of the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #215
Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +3% 56%
Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)
Plaintiff's opposition to the MTD provides a slight boost. A strong opposition suggests a viable legal argument against dismissal, increasing the likelihood of the claim surviving.
Source: Docket #181-182
Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 53%
MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)
The filing of another MTD, this time to the Second Amended Complaint, introduces renewed uncertainty and suggests the defendants continue to challenge the legal sufficiency of the claim.
Source: Docket #173
May 7, 2025 motion 58%
Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)
Musk's motion to dismiss OpenAI's counterclaims has no direct impact on the probability of success for the breach of contract claim. It's a separate issue.
Source: Docket #166
May 1, 2025 order▲ +14% 58%
MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)
This is a CRITICAL ruling. If the breach of contract claim (Count 6) survived the MTD, the probability significantly increases. The judge found sufficient grounds to allow the claim to proceed, indicating a stronger legal basis.
Source: Docket #163
Apr 9, 2025 order 44%
Case Management Order (order)
The Case Management Order setting the discovery schedule has a neutral impact. It's a procedural step that doesn't directly affect the merits of the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #146
Apr 4, 2025 hearing▼ -2% 44%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
Another MTD hearing introduces uncertainty. The outcome depends on the judge's interpretation of the arguments presented, creating a slight decrease in the probability of success.
Source: Docket #144 Transcript
Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +3% 46%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
Plaintiff's opposition to the MTD provides a slight boost. A strong opposition suggests a viable legal argument against dismissal, increasing the likelihood of the claim surviving.
Source: Docket #127-129
Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -5% 43%
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)
Denial of the PI, while not directly ruling on the merits of the contract claim, suggests the plaintiff's overall case is facing challenges. This indirectly lowers the probability of success for the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #121
Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -5% 48%
Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)
Another MTD filed by the defendants decreases the probability. This indicates continued challenges to the legal sufficiency of the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #102
Jan 13, 2025 order 53%
PI Hearing Scheduled (order)
Scheduling the PI hearing has no direct impact on the breach of contract claim's probability. It's a procedural step related to the PI motion.
Source: Docket #93
Dec 27, 2024 brief 53%
PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)
Similar to the opposition, the PI reply brief has a neutral impact. It focuses on the PI, not the core elements of the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #73
Dec 13, 2024 brief 53%
Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)
The opposition to the Preliminary Injunction (PI) motion has a neutral impact on the breach of contract claim's probability. While related to the overall case, the PI focuses on immediate relief, not the underlying contract dispute.
Source: Docket #64-65
Nov 20, 2024 hearing▼ -2% 53%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
The hearing introduces uncertainty. The outcome depends on the judge's interpretation of the arguments presented, creating a slight decrease in the probability of success.
Source: Hearing Transcript
Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +5% 55%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
Plaintiff's opposition to the MTD, arguing the discovery rule tolls limitations, bolsters the claim. A strong opposition suggests a viable legal argument against dismissal, increasing the likelihood of the claim surviving.
Source: Docket #31
Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +12% 50%
Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)
Submission of the Founding Agreement, email evidence, and financial records significantly strengthens the claim. These exhibits provide concrete evidence of the contract's existence, terms, and potential breach.
Source: Exhibits 1-25
Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -7% 38%
Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)
The filing of a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) introduces uncertainty. The defendants are challenging the contract formation, statute of limitations, and standing, which directly attack the viability of the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #23
Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +7% 45%
Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)
Musk's sworn declaration detailing founding promises and donation intent directly supports the existence of an express contract. This strengthens the claim by providing direct evidence of the agreement's terms and conditions.
Source: Musk Decl.
Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +13% 38%
Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)
Refiling the complaint with additional allegations and exhibits increases the probability. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) likely addresses the weaknesses that led to the initial dismissal, strengthening the breach of contract claim.
Source: Docket #1 (new)
Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -10% 25%
Voluntary Dismissal (filing)
Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests initial weaknesses in the case or a strategic pause. This decreases the probability of success for the breach of contract claim, as it indicates potential issues with the initial pleading or evidence.
Source: Docket #12
Mar 1, 2024 filing 35%
Complaint Filed (filing)
Initial filing of the complaint. Baseline probability reflects the inherent uncertainty at the start of litigation. The claim's success hinges on proving the existence of a valid contract, breach, and damages.
Source: Docket #1
Evidence from Filings
cl_1_0Aug 5, 2024
Original Complaint - Allegation of Express Written Correspondence
"In a series of express written correspondence in 2015, Altman and Musk entered into a valid, enforceable, and binding agreement to co-found a non-profit entity (OpenAI, Inc.) to develop leading AI/AGI technology."
cl_1_0Supports Musk
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss - Lack of Specificity in Contract Terms
"Musk could point to no facts showing any defendant promised him anything—much less the specific undertakings (like open-sourcing GPT-4) he complained had been breached."
cl_25_0Supports Altman
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss - Failure to Plead Bargained-For Consideration
"Musk’s only allegations of exchange or bargain are conclusory: he asserts that Altman and OpenAI, Inc. agreed to act and refrain from acting “[i]n exchange, and as consideration for” Musk’s contributions, ¶ 248, while pleading no supporting fact—no writing, no conversation, nothing suggesting the parties engaged in bargaining of any kind."
cl_25_0Supports Altman
cl_1_0Aug 5, 2024
Original Complaint - Alleged Terms of the Agreement
"In exchange, and as consideration for Musk’s contributions, Altman promised that OpenAI, Inc. (i) would be a non-profit and develop AI/AGI for the benefit of humanity, not personal profits, and (ii) to that end, would make OpenAI, Inc.’s technology"
cl_1_0Supports Musk
cl_25_6Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss - Failure to Plead Mutual Assent
"This failure to plead mutual assent to the purported contract’s terms is fatal. So is Musk’s failure to plausibly allege that his contributions to OpenAI were an “inducement to the promisor,” as necessary to plead bargained-for consideration. Cal. Civ. Code § 1605. Without these two foundational elements of contract formation, Musk cannot sustain this claim."
cl_25_6Supports Altman
Legal Standard
Preponderance of the evidence
  • 1. A valid, enforceable contract existed between the parties
  • 2. Plaintiff performed or was excused from performance
  • 3. Defendant breached a specific term of the contract
  • 4. Plaintiff suffered damages caused by the breach
See: Oasis West Realty v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (2011)
Element Analysis (Consensus)
A valid, enforceable contract existed between the partiesweak

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges a series of express written correspondence in 2015 formed a binding agreement to co-found OpenAI as a non-profit for the benefit of humanity (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue Musk fails to plead the essential elements of an express contract, including mutual assent and bargained-for consideration (cl_25_0).
  • Defendants contend Musk's allegations of exchange are conclusory and lack supporting facts, such as writings or conversations suggesting a bargain (cl_25_0).
  • Defendants point out that Musk's donations began after the alleged contract formation, undermining the claim of quid pro quo (cl_25_0).
Model Analysis: This element is weak for the plaintiff. While Musk alleges a contract, the defense raises strong arguments that the terms are not specific enough and that there was no bargained-for exchange. The lack of concrete evidence of mutual assent and consideration weakens this element.
Plaintiff performed or was excused from performancemoderate

Evidence For

  • Musk claims he contributed capital, provided advice, and used his stature to recruit talent and attract further contributions to OpenAI, Inc. (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • The defense doesn't directly challenge Musk's performance but argues that his contributions were not made as part of a bargained-for exchange, thus not constituting valid performance under a contract (cl_25_0).
Model Analysis: This element is moderately strong for the plaintiff. While the defense doesn't dispute that Musk contributed, they argue that these contributions weren't tied to a contractual obligation. If a contract is proven, this element would likely be satisfied.
Defendant breached a specific term of the contractweak

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges Altman breached the agreement by deviating from the non-profit mission and pursuing private profits, including licensing technology to Microsoft (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue Musk fails to identify specific language in the alleged correspondence constituting an undertaking to open-source all technology or refrain from licensing to Microsoft (cl_25_6).
Model Analysis: This element is weak for the plaintiff. The defense effectively argues that Musk hasn't identified specific contractual terms that were breached. The lack of specificity in the alleged agreement makes it difficult to prove a breach.
Plaintiff suffered damages caused by the breachmoderate

Evidence For

  • Musk claims damages including financial contributions, loss of time and resources, and damage to his reputation (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • The defense doesn't directly address damages but argues that because there was no valid contract, there can be no damages resulting from a breach (cl_25_0).
Model Analysis: This element is moderately strong for the plaintiff, contingent on proving the existence of a valid contract and a breach. If those elements are established, Musk's claimed damages would likely be sufficient.
Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

  • Musk alleges specific promises made by Altman regarding the non-profit nature of OpenAI and open-source technology.
  • Musk can likely demonstrate that he provided significant contributions to OpenAI.

Key Weaknesses

  • The existence of a valid, enforceable contract is highly questionable due to lack of specificity and bargained-for consideration.
  • Musk struggles to identify specific contractual terms that were allegedly breached.