Resolution criteria

This market resolves based on the final judgment, ruling, or settlement in the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Greg Brockman. Each option resolves to "Yes" if that specific outcome is explicitly ordered by the court or included as a binding term in a public settlement agreement. If a settlement occurs, it must be officially filed and documented to resolve these options. If multiple outcomes occur, multiple options may resolve "Yes."

• Executive Ouster: A court-ordered removal or suspension of a current OpenAI executive (specifically Sam Altman or Greg Brockman).

• Structural Reversion: A court order mandating the dissolution of OpenAI's for-profit arm, or a mandate returning to a structure where the non-profit board holds absolute veto power over commercial activity.

• Total damages awarded: A court-ordered award or settlement payment exceeding $10 billion USD.

• Forced Open Sourcing: A court order mandating the public release of model weights or research for any frontier model (e.g., GPT-4 or successors).

• Licensing Restriction: A court order or settlement that nullifies or materially restricts OpenAI's exclusive licensing agreements with Microsoft.

• Defense win: The case is dismissed, or a final judgment is entered where no remedies or damages are awarded against the defendants.

If the lawsuit is ongoing as of the resolution date, or if a ruling does not match these specific outcomes, this market may be resolved based on official court filings available via the PACER system or major legal news reporting (e.g., Reuters, Bloomberg).

Background

Elon Musk initiated litigation against OpenAI and its leadership, alleging breaches of the company’s original founding agreement, which aimed to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity rather than for profit. The complaint challenges the transition of OpenAI into a capped-profit structure and its close commercial relationship with Microsoft. These options cover the primary legal and structural remedies sought or hypothesized in the ongoing dispute.

This description was generated by AI.

• Update 2026-05-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Specific sub-questions about whether anyone cried and whether a chatbot conversation was admitted as evidence will resolve NO, unless evidence to the contrary is provided.