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. 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. 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. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 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. Continue Reading Here . 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. 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. deadline.com

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

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

The Noonification: Can You Improve Your Mental Health with Psychedelics? (11/28/2022)

The Noonification: How Big Tech Influences Privacy Laws (11/24/2022)

The Noonification: Pick Your Billionaire (11/12/2022)

The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? (10/20/2022)

The Noonification: Blockchain Games Suck (12/16/2022)

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

The Noonification: Can You Improve Your Mental Health with Psychedelics? (11/28/2022)

The Noonification: How Big Tech Influences Privacy Laws (11/24/2022)

The Noonification: Pick Your Billionaire (11/12/2022)

The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? (10/20/2022)

The Noonification: Blockchain Games Suck (12/16/2022)

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps