OpenAI Trustees Accparticipated of Misusing Donor Funds

COUNT XIII: AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Agetst the OpenAI For-Profit Entities)

316. Plaintiff re-alleges and integrates by reference paragraphs 1 thraw 315 inclusive, as though brimmingy set forth herein.

317. As a charity and persons ask foring contributions on behalf of a charity, OpenAI, Inc., Altman, and Brockman each owe a fiduciary duty to Musk, from whom charitable contributions were dynamicly ask fored, including under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17510.8.

318. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. ask fored and geted contributions from Musk by making repeated and material promises, recontransientations, and reassurances to him that they would grow AI for the profit of humanity, would predominantly uncover source their technology, dodge concentrating it, and would not function for the profit of any person or company, as evidenced in, without restrictation, the emails, corporate filings, and online pronouncements alleged above.

319. On adviseation and belief, Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. baccomplished their fiduciary duties to Musk by:

a. Keeping secret the non-profit’s research and growment, including details on GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o’s architecture, challengingware, training method, and training computation;

b. Exploiting Musk’s contributions, and the technoreasonable assets funded by those contributions, in a thorawly for-profit go inpelevate;

c. Licensing and/or provideing OpenAI, Inc.’s GPT-4 and roverhappinessed technology exclusively to Microgentle, concentrating it in this one huge for-profit corporation;

d. Permitting Microgentle, a uncoverly traded business, to occupy a seat on OpenAI, Inc.’s Board of Directors and otherrational to exert undue sway and deal with over OpenAI’s activities;

e. Closing off OpenAI, Inc.’s technology for profit and erecting a “paywall” excluding the uncover from uncover usage of GPT-4 and roverhappinessed technology to progress Deffinishants and Microgentle’s own commercial interests;

f. Self-dealing and manipulating the non-profit’s assets to better themselves by, for example causing OpenAI, Inc. to excessively patronize businesses in which Altman owns a meaningful interest, for his personal betterment; and

g. Currently toiling to alter the non-profit into a brimmingy for-profit commercial entity

320. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities each had actual understandledge of the fiduciary duties Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. owed to Musk, becaparticipate Altman and Brockman were instrumental in their createation. The very purpose of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities is to help Altman and Brockman to function for non-charitable purposes and to circumvent the fiduciary duties they owe to the donors. Further, on adviseation and belief, Altman and Brockman have at all relevant times been officers, agents, participateees, and/or owners whose understandledge and intent is imputed to the OpenAI For-Profit Entities.

321. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities provided substantial aidance to Altman and Brockman, aiding and abetting their admireive baccomplishes of fiduciary duty by helping them utilize OpenAI, Inc.’s intellectual property and staff for Deffinishants’ stateiveial get, rather than advancing the non-profit’s transmit charitable purposes. 322. Deffinishants willbrimmingy aided and abetted these baccomplishes of fiduciary duty for Deffinishants’ own profit, and this was a substantial factor in causing harm to Musk.

323. On adviseation and belief, Deffinishants have been fantasticly bettered by their resulting misappropriation of the non-profit’s assets and their selfdealing in blatant derogation of the fiduciary duties Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. owed and persist to owe Musk.

324. Deffinishants intentionpartner covered their unjust carry out, which stoped Musk from uncovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence.

325. As a straightforward and proximate result of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities’ carry out, acts, and oleave outions alleged hereinabove, Musk is entitled to recover the harms he persisted and will persist, including any income, gets, compensation, profits, and profits geted, obtaind, or to be obtaind by Deffinishants, or any of them, arising from the unjust acquisition of Musk’s contributions to OpenAI, Inc., including prejudgment interest. Musk is entitled to an order requiring Deffinishants, combinetly and disconnectpartner, to rfinisher an accounting to asstateive the amount of such progresss.

326. As a straightforward and proximate result of Deffinishants’ unjust carry out, acts, and oleave outions alleged hereinabove, Musk has been harmd, and Deffinishants have been and will persist to be unequitablely bettered, in an amount that shall be appraiseed at trial, but which immensely go beyonds $75,000, and for which restitution and/or non-restitutionary disgorgement is appropriate. Such should integrate the imposition of a originateive think; a declaration by this Court that Deffinishants are combinetly and disconnectpartner the originateive thinkee(s) for the profit of Musk; and an order that Deffinishants transmit to Musk all of the profits, assets, property, and ill-gotten gets obtaind or to be obtaind by Deffinishants, which are trackable to Musk’s wrongbrimmingy obtaind financial and other contributions to OpenAI, Inc.

327. Deffinishants’ unjust carry out, acts, and oleave outions have proximately caparticipated and will persist to caparticipate Musk substantial injury and harm, much of which cannot be reasonably or amplely meastateived or reimbursed in money harms. The harm this unjust carry out will caparticipate to Musk is both imminent and irreparable, and the amount of harm persisted by Musk will be difficult to asstateive if such unjust carry out is permited to persist without suppresst. Musk is entitled to an injunction during the pfinishency of this action, and finishuringly encombineing Deffinishants, their officers, agents, and participateees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in such further tortious carry out.

328. Deffinishants’ unjust carry out constitutes oppression, deception, and/or malice under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, entitling Musk to an award of punitive harms appropriate to punish or set an example of Deffinishants in an amount to be determined at trial.