paint-brush
Musk Accuses Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI of Misleading Claims in AI Researchby@legalpdf
256 reads

Musk Accuses Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI of Misleading Claims in AI Research

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesAugust 11th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

He alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading claims about OpenAI's AI/AGI technology, advertising it as open-source and non-commercial while secretly using contributions for proprietary and commercial purposes. Musk relied on these misleading statements, leading to substantial harm. He seeks damages exceeding $75,000, prejudgment interest, and a permanent injunction to prevent further false advertising by the defendants.
featured image - Musk Accuses Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI of Misleading Claims in AI Research
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 24 of 29.

COUNT XII: FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17500 et seq. (Against Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc.)

307. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 306 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.


308. As described above, Altman and Brockman, in their individual capacities and on behalf of OpenAI, Inc., have made materially false and/or misleading representations of fact in commercial advertisements about the nature, characteristics, and qualities of Defendants’ products and services, including that OpenAI, Inc.’s AI/AGI research and technology would be largely open source for the benefit of humanity, and would not be concentrated or used for private commercial gain.


309. Defendants knew and/or should have known their communications—via OpenAI, Inc.’s website, online marketing, online blog posts, and social media—were materially false and/or misleading when they were made.


310. Defendants intended to use and did use the contributions from Musk and others to fund the research and development of AI/AGI technology which Defendants have kept secret from the public and have concentrated in Microsoft and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities to enhance commercial profits and personal gain.


311. Musk reasonably relied on these statements as he continued to fund OpenAI, Inc., believing his contributions were going toward the AI research and development project, as advertised and promoted by Defendants. Defendants’ conduct deceived Musk and is likely to deceive a substantial segment of the public.


312. Defendants intentionally concealed their wrongful conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence.


313. As a direct and proximate result of Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc.’s conduct, acts, and omissions alleged hereinabove, Musk is entitled to recover the damages he sustained and will sustain, including any income, gains, compensation, profits, and advantages obtained, received, or to be received by Defendants, or any of them, arising from the wrongfully obtained contributions Musk made to OpenAI, Inc., which amount vastly exceeds $75,000, including prejudgment interest.


314. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, acts, and omissions have proximately caused and will continue to cause Musk substantial injury and damage, much of which cannot be reasonably or adequately measured or compensated in money damages. The harm this wrongful conduct will cause to Musk is both imminent and irreparable, and the amount of damage sustained by Musk will be difficult to ascertain if such wrongful conduct is allowed to continue without restraint. Musk has no adequate remedy at law with respect to Defendants’ ongoing unlawful conduct.


315. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Musk is entitled to an injunction during the pendency of this action, and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in such further acts of false advertising.



Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.