Claim #7

Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract

34%

Confidence: 19% - 49%

Model Predictions

GPT-5.2

40%

Gemini 2 Flash

35%

Grok 4.1

35%

Claude Opus 4.5

25%

View by Model

Probability Timeline(Consensus)

58%45%32%

Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1

Oct 31, 2025 order 54%

Motion for Relief Denied (order)

Denying a motion for relief from a pretrial order is a procedural matter and doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the implied contract claim.

Source: Docket #348

Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +2% 54%

Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)

Enforcing the Sutskever subpoena suggests the plaintiff is gaining access to potentially valuable information relevant to the case, which could strengthen the implied contract claim if Sutskever's testimony supports the existence of an agreement.

Source: Docket #339

Sep 22, 2025 order 52%

Discovery Dispute Orders (order)

Resolving discovery disputes is a normal part of litigation and doesn't inherently change the probability of success for this specific claim unless the orders significantly impact the evidence available.

Source: Docket #276, #278

▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)

Aug 12, 2025 order 52%

ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)

The dismissal of other counts WITH PREJUDICE doesn't directly impact the implied contract claim, assuming it wasn't one of the dismissed counts. The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims also doesn't directly affect this claim.

Source: Docket #228

Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -1% 52%

Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)

Granting a motion to strike, even in part, suggests some weakening of the plaintiff's arguments or evidence, slightly decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #222

Jul 25, 2025 order 53%

Case Schedule Modified (order)

Modifying the case schedule is a procedural step and doesn't directly affect the implied contract claim's probability.

Source: Docket #215

Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +3% 53%

Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)

Opposition to the MTD shows continued effort to defend the claim, slightly increasing its probability of survival.

Source: Docket #181-182

Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 50%

MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)

Another MTD, this time to the Second Amended Complaint, again challenges the viability of the claims, including the implied contract claim, reducing its probability of success.

Source: Docket #173

May 7, 2025 motion 55%

Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)

This motion regarding counterclaims doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the implied contract claim.

Source: Docket #166

May 1, 2025 order▲ +12% 55%

MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)

This is a critical ruling. If the implied contract claim survived the MTD, its probability of success significantly increases. We assume it survived, as there's no specific mention of its dismissal.

Source: Docket #163

Apr 9, 2025 order 43%

Case Management Order (order)

Setting the discovery schedule is a procedural step and doesn't directly affect the implied contract claim's probability.

Source: Docket #146

Apr 4, 2025 hearing 43%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

The hearing itself is a neutral event until a ruling is made.

Source: Docket #144 Transcript

Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +3% 43%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

Opposition to the MTD shows continued effort to defend the claim, slightly increasing its probability of survival.

Source: Docket #127-129

Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -5% 40%

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)

Denial of the PI, while not directly ruling on the merits of the implied contract claim, signals a general weakness in the plaintiff's case and the judge's skepticism, decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #121

Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -5% 45%

Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)

Another MTD, this time from Microsoft et al., further challenges the viability of the claims, including the implied contract claim, reducing its probability of success.

Source: Docket #102

Jan 13, 2025 order 50%

PI Hearing Scheduled (order)

Scheduling the PI hearing is a procedural step and doesn't directly affect the implied contract claim's probability.

Source: Docket #93

Dec 27, 2024 brief 50%

PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)

The PI reply brief, even with a Musk declaration, has a limited impact on the implied contract claim's probability at this stage.

Source: Docket #73

Dec 13, 2024 brief 50%

Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)

Opposition to the PI motion doesn't directly impact the implied contract claim's probability, as the PI focuses on immediate harm and broader issues.

Source: Docket #64-65

Nov 20, 2024 hearing 50%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

The hearing itself doesn't change the probability until a ruling is made. It's a neutral event.

Source: Hearing Transcript

Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +3% 50%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

A strong opposition to the MTD, arguing for tolling of limitations, indicates a viable legal strategy and increases the probability of the claim surviving.

Source: Docket #31

Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +7% 47%

Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)

Founding Agreement, email evidence, and financial records provide concrete evidence to support the existence of an implied agreement, increasing the probability of success.

Source: Exhibits 1-25

Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -8% 40%

Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)

The MTD challenges the core elements of the implied contract claim (formation, statute of limitations, standing), significantly decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #23

Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +6% 48%

Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)

Musk's declaration detailing founding promises and donation intent directly supports the existence of an implied agreement, strengthening the claim.

Source: Musk Decl.

Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +7% 42%

Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)

Refiling with additional allegations and exhibits suggests a stronger case, potentially addressing weaknesses identified earlier. This increases the probability of success for the implied contract claim.

Source: Docket #1 (new)

Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -5% 35%

Voluntary Dismissal (filing)

Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests a weakness in the initial case or strategy, reducing the probability of success for all claims, including the implied contract claim.

Source: Docket #12

Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%

Complaint Filed (filing)

Initial filing establishes a baseline probability. The claim's success hinges on proving an implied agreement, which is fact-dependent.

Source: Docket #1

Evidence from Filings

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint

"The relationship, surrounding circumstances, and intentional course of conduct between Musk, on the one hand, and Altman and OpenAI, Inc., on the other, resulted in a valid, enforceable, and binding implied-in-fact contract."

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint

"Altman proposed that he and Musk co-found an AI research non-profit that Altman promised would make its findings open source for the good of all and would avoid concentrating its technology for the profit of any person or company. Musk assented and in turn agreed to use his time, name, and extensive connections to recruit premier scientific talent, attract investment, and made significant financial contributions to establish the non-profit."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

OpenAI Motion to Dismiss

"No facts of any kind are pleaded to establish supposed promises from Altman or OpenAI, Inc. to Musk that they would presumptively open-source all technology and refrain from the acts Musk catalogs."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

OpenAI Motion to Dismiss

"Asserting that a contract is implied rather than express does not excuse a failure to plead mutual assent and bargained-for consideration."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

OpenAI Motion to Dismiss

"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."

Legal Standard

Preponderance of the evidence

1. Conduct of the parties manifested mutual agreement
2. Contract terms can be reasonably inferred from the conduct
3. Defendant breached the implied agreement
4. Plaintiff suffered damages from the breach

See: Retired Employees Ass'n v. County of Orange, 52 Cal.4th 1171 (2011)

Element Analysis (Consensus)

Conduct of the parties manifested mutual agreementweak

Evidence For

Musk alleges that Altman proposed a non-profit AI research organization with open-source principles, and Musk agreed to contribute time, resources, and connections (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk's allegations are conclusory and lack specific facts demonstrating a mutual agreement (cl_25_0).
Defendants state that Musk does not identify the specific conduct that allegedly gave rise to his implied contract (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: While Musk claims an agreement was reached, the evidence lacks concrete details demonstrating mutual assent beyond initial discussions. The defense effectively argues that the complaint lacks specific facts.

Contract terms can be reasonably inferred from the conductweak

Evidence For

Musk asserts that the implied terms included developing AI for the public good and avoiding private profiteering, based on Altman's statements and the nature of the initial non-profit concept (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants contend that Musk fails to plead facts establishing promises to open-source all technology and refrain from certain actions (cl_25_0).
Defendants argue that the terms of the alleged contract are vague and undefined (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: The terms are not clearly defined or easily inferred from the conduct. The defense argues that the alleged terms are too vague to form a contract.

Defendant breached the implied agreementweak

Evidence For

Musk implies breach through OpenAI's shift towards for-profit activities and restricted technology access, deviating from the initial open-source promise (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk has not pleaded facts to show a bargain or exchange (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: The evidence of a breach is circumstantial and relies on interpreting OpenAI's actions as a deviation from the initial non-profit concept. The defense effectively challenges the existence of a binding agreement in the first place.

Plaintiff suffered damages from the breachmoderate

Evidence For

Musk claims damages including financial contributions, lost time and resources, and reputational harm (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue that these damages are not directly linked to a breach of a valid implied contract, especially if mutual agreement and defined terms are not established.

Model Analysis: Musk's damages are plausible if a contract existed and was breached. However, the strength of this element depends on proving the existence and terms of the implied contract.

Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

Musk contributed significant resources to OpenAI in its early stages.
Musk alleges that Altman made promises about OpenAI remaining a non-profit and open-source.

Key Weaknesses

The evidence of mutual agreement and defined contract terms is weak.
Defendants argue that Musk's allegations are conclusory and lack specific facts.
Defendants argue that Musk's contributions were not made on condition of the (fictitious) promises Musk had pleaded (cl_25_0).