As more recent evidence of allegedly bad-faith conduct, OpenAI noted that Musk signed a letter calling for a moratorium on all AI development in 2023. That six-month pause on all AI development may have bought Musk time to catch up with ChatGPT, as he was at that time plowing ahead with his plans to release Grok, OpenAI alleged, questioning the sincerity of Musk’s co-signing of the letter.
And finally, in 2025, OpenAI flagged Musk’s allegedly “sham bid” to buy OpenAI for $97 billion “as a ‘naked effort to disrupt the [OpenAI] board’s consideration of a potential restructuring and to sow confusion among employees and potential investors,’ for the ultimate purpose of threatening ‘OpenAI’s ability to pursue its mission on terms uncorrupted by unlawful harassment and interference.'”
All of this “deceptive conduct,” OpenAI alleged, shows that Musk has “unclean hands,” and his “supposed grievances are not genuinely held.”
As the lawsuit moves forward, discovery is scheduled to end in December, giving OpenAI four months to prod Musk for the evidence they claim to need to raise these defenses and more. In the meantime, Musk apparently is mulling filing a new complaint against Apple that could lead to additional attacks on OpenAI’s business.
Perhaps most damning for Musk, however, OpenAI is attempting to subpoena Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, who, it claims, “played a key role in coordinating Musk’s sham bid for OpenAI—including by hastily soliciting numerous third parties to participate in the supposed hostile takeover.” If OpenAI beats the lawsuit, it could be a major blow to Musk’s ego as he seeks to dominate the AI industry by outperforming his former partner. Most recently, Musk vowed that Grok 5 will soon outperform OpenAI’s GPT-5.
But if Musk pulls out a win, any “unlawful benefits” that OpenAI received as a result of Musk’s early investment could be disgorged, perhaps hobbling OpenAI just as xAI receives funding to continue building out “the world’s biggest supercomputer, Colossus,” to supercharge Grok.
xAI did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.
Source link
