← Back to ClaimsClaim 9 of 15
Claim #9

Unjust Enrichment / Quasi-Contract

57%
Confidence: 42% - 72%
Model Predictions
GPT-5.2
55%
Gemini 2 Flash
48%
Grok 4.1
60%
Claude Opus 4.5
65%
View by Model
Probability Timeline(Consensus)
58%45%32%
Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1
Oct 31, 2025 order 52%
Motion for Relief Denied (order)
The denial of a motion for relief from a pretrial order has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability unless the relief sought was directly related to evidence or arguments supporting the claim. Assuming no such direct impact, the probability remains unchanged.
Source: Docket #348
Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +2% 52%
Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)
If Ilya Sutskever's testimony is relevant to establishing the benefit conferred or the inequity of its retention, compelling his compliance with the subpoena would slightly increase the probability of success for the unjust enrichment claim.
Source: Docket #339
Sep 22, 2025 order 50%
Discovery Dispute Orders (order)
Orders resolving discovery disputes have a neutral effect unless they significantly impact the availability of evidence crucial to the unjust enrichment claim. Assuming no such impact, the probability remains unchanged.
Source: Docket #276, #278
▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)
Aug 12, 2025 order 50%
ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)
The dismissal of other counts (III, XX, XXI) with prejudice and the denial of Musk's motion to dismiss counterclaims has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability. These events do not directly impact the elements of this specific claim.
Source: Docket #228
Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -3% 50%
Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)
If the motion to strike removed allegations relevant to the unjust enrichment claim, it would slightly decrease the probability of success. If it struck irrelevant allegations, the impact would be negligible.
Source: Docket #222
Jul 25, 2025 order 53%
Case Schedule Modified (order)
A modification to the case schedule for discovery has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability. It doesn't directly impact the elements of this specific claim.
Source: Docket #215
Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +3% 53%
Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)
The opposition to the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint provides some support for the claim, arguing against dismissal and increasing the probability slightly.
Source: Docket #181-182
Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 50%
MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)
Another motion to dismiss, this time against the Second Amended Complaint, introduces renewed uncertainty and decreases the probability of success for the unjust enrichment claim.
Source: Docket #173
May 7, 2025 motion 55%
Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)
Musk's motion to dismiss counterclaims has no direct impact on the unjust enrichment claim, so the probability remains unchanged.
Source: Docket #166
May 1, 2025 order▲ +14% 55%
MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)
This is a critical ruling. If the motion to dismiss was DENIED for the unjust enrichment claim, it significantly increases the probability of success. This means the judge found the claim plausible enough to proceed. If the motion was GRANTED, the probability would decrease significantly. Assuming it survived, the probability increases substantially.
Source: Docket #163
Apr 9, 2025 order 41%
Case Management Order (order)
The case management order setting a discovery schedule has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability. It simply outlines the procedural path forward.
Source: Docket #146
Apr 4, 2025 hearing▼ -2% 41%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
Another hearing on the motion to dismiss introduces uncertainty, slightly decreasing the probability until a ruling is made.
Source: Docket #144 Transcript
Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +3% 43%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
Opposition to the motion to dismiss provides some support for the claim, arguing against dismissal and increasing the probability slightly.
Source: Docket #127-129
Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -5% 40%
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)
The denial of the preliminary injunction, while not directly related to the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, signals a general weakness in the plaintiff's case and the judge's skepticism, lowering the probability.
Source: Docket #121
Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -5% 45%
Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)
Another motion to dismiss filed by additional defendants increases the uncertainty surrounding the unjust enrichment claim, decreasing its probability of success.
Source: Docket #102
Jan 13, 2025 order 50%
PI Hearing Scheduled (order)
Scheduling the PI hearing has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability. It doesn't directly impact the elements of this specific claim.
Source: Docket #93
Dec 27, 2024 brief 50%
PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)
The reply brief in support of the preliminary injunction has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability. It doesn't directly impact the elements of this specific claim.
Source: Docket #73
Dec 13, 2024 brief 50%
Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)
The opposition to the preliminary injunction motion has a neutral effect on the unjust enrichment claim's probability. While related to the overall case, it doesn't directly impact the elements of this specific claim.
Source: Docket #64-65
Nov 20, 2024 hearing▼ -2% 50%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
The hearing introduces uncertainty. The outcome depends on the judge's interpretation of the arguments and evidence presented, slightly decreasing the probability until a ruling is made.
Source: Hearing Transcript
Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +4% 52%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
A strong opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing for the claim's viability, increases the probability of success. It indicates that the plaintiff believes they have a strong legal basis for the claim.
Source: Docket #31
Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +8% 48%
Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)
The submission of founding agreements, email evidence, and financial records provides concrete support for the unjust enrichment claim, increasing its probability of success. These exhibits can demonstrate the alleged benefit conferred and the inequity of its retention.
Source: Exhibits 1-25
Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -7% 40%
Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)
The filing of a motion to dismiss introduces uncertainty. The success of the unjust enrichment claim now hinges on surviving this motion, decreasing the probability.
Source: Docket #23
Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +5% 47%
Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)
Musk's declaration detailing founding promises and donation intent directly supports the unjust enrichment claim by establishing a basis for why Altman and OpenAI allegedly benefitted unfairly from Musk's contributions.
Source: Musk Decl.
Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +7% 42%
Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)
Refiling with an amended complaint suggests strengthened arguments or new evidence relevant to the unjust enrichment claim, increasing the probability.
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 strategy or evidence, lowering the probability of success for all claims, including unjust enrichment.
Source: Docket #12
Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%
Complaint Filed (filing)
Initial filing establishes a baseline probability. Unjust enrichment claims often depend on specific facts and equitable considerations, so a moderate initial probability is appropriate.
Source: Docket #1
Evidence from Filings
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
First Amended Complaint - Unjust Enrichment Claim
"Even in the absence of an enforceable agreement, Defendants have still been unjustly enriched at Musk’s expense as a result of their improper exploitation for personal profit of OpenAI, Inc.’s resources, intellectual property, and assets as detailed above."
Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Document 32 Filed 11/14/24 Page 55 of 107Supports Musk
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
First Amended Complaint - Musk's Contributions
"Musk contributed considerable money and resources to launch and sustain OpenAI, Inc., which was done on the condition that the endeavor would be and remain a non-profit devoted to openly sharing its technology with the public and avoid concentrating its power in the hands of a few."
Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Document 32 Filed 11/14/24 Page 55 of 107Supports Musk
cl_393_5
Wazzan Deposition - Musk's Awareness
"Are you aware that Mr. Musk testified that by September 2017, he had already concluded that Mr. Altman and Mr. Brockman were being deceptive, and that their real goal was to create a closed-source maximum-profit entity for their own benefit?"
Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Document 393-5 Filed 01/16/26 Page 62 of 325Supports Altman
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss - Lack of Bargain
"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."
Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Document 25 Filed 10/08/24 Page 23 of 36Supports Altman
cl_64_0Dec 13, 2024
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction - Adequate Remedy
"Even had he standing to bring a claim for misuse of historical donations, money damages could remedy any supposed harm, see Cal. Jur. 3d Corporations § 613 (noting that the plaintiff can “obtain damages for . . . a breach of a charitable trust”), foreclosing the availability of equitable relief, Am. Passage Media Corp, 750 F.2d at 1473-74."
Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Document 64 Filed 12/13/24 Page 28 of 33Supports Altman
Legal Standard
Preponderance of the evidence
  • 1. Plaintiff conferred a benefit on defendant
  • 2. Defendant knew of and appreciated the benefit
  • 3. Defendant accepted or retained the benefit
  • 4. It would be inequitable for defendant to retain benefit without paying
See: Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 14 Cal.4th 39 (1996)
Element Analysis (Consensus)
Plaintiff conferred a benefit on defendantstrong

Evidence For

  • Musk contributed significant money and resources to OpenAI, Inc. (cl_32_0)

Evidence Against

  • No evidence cited
Model Analysis: The $50M+ in donations is a clear benefit conferred.
Defendant knew of and appreciated the benefitstrong

Evidence For

  • OpenAI, Inc. solicited and accepted Musk's contributions. (cl_32_0)

Evidence Against

  • No evidence cited
Model Analysis: It is highly likely that OpenAI knew of and appreciated the benefit of Musk's substantial contributions.
Defendant accepted or retained the benefitstrong

Evidence For

  • OpenAI, Inc. retained the financial contributions made by Musk. (cl_32_0)

Evidence Against

  • No evidence cited
Model Analysis: OpenAI continues to operate and utilize resources, including those derived from Musk's contributions.
It would be inequitable for defendant to retain benefit without payingmoderate

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges that OpenAI deviated from its original non-profit mission and is now pursuing commercial interests, making it inequitable for them to retain the benefits of his contributions without compensating him. (cl_32_0)

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue that Musk received what he bargained for, namely the establishment of an AI research organization, and that any shift in OpenAI's direction does not automatically render the retention of benefits inequitable. (cl_25_0)
  • Musk was aware of the potential for Altman and Brockman to be deceptive as early as September 2017 (cl_393_5)
Model Analysis: This is the most contested element. The success of this claim hinges on whether the court finds that OpenAI's shift to a for-profit model, if proven, makes it unjust for them to retain Musk's contributions. The fact that Musk may have suspected the change in direction earlier weakens this element.
Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

  • Musk clearly conferred a substantial benefit on OpenAI.
  • OpenAI knowingly accepted and retained these benefits.

Key Weaknesses

  • The key weakness is whether it is truly 'inequitable' for OpenAI to retain the benefit, given the initial agreement and the potential for Musk to have been aware of the changing direction.
  • Defendants will argue Musk received what he bargained for initially.