You can sue for basically any reason in the US. If Musk is able to prove they are mishandling the money, which I think is debatable, then the case can proceed.
Just because you donate money doesn’t mean the charity or nonprofit (or whatever OpenAi is), can do as they like. They may still be committing fraud if they are not using the money in the way that they claim.
Don't you have to have some sort of standing in the lawsuit? If you don't directly suffer harm, I thought you'd have to convince the government to prosecute them instead?
Harm can be all sorts of things, but taking money under false pretenses would qualify. Certainly doesn’t ensure Musk wins, but it’s enough to at least take a shot at beginning proceedings.
As for lawsuit vs criminal prosecution, the waters there are somewhat muddied. Consider the OJ case, where he was acquitted in the criminal trial and then found liable in the civil trial. Really bizarre stuff.
Personally I do think more things should be pursued criminally, but instead we seem to just be content to trade money through the courts, like an exorbitant and agonizing form of weregild.
You can file a lawsuit for anything. If the lawsuit has serious fundamental flaws (such as lack of standing), then it will be dismissed pretty quickly.
Well you can also be spanked by the courts for frivolous litigation, and if it's truly frivolous, you may have a hard time finding an attorney, because they can be sanctioned for bringing such a suit as well.
This can happen in theory, but it is pretty rare. What you or I might call frivolous is often entertained in the court of law, and serial abusers of the court system may still issue hundreds or even thousands of attempts at lawsuits. This may be for monetary gain or to use the specter of the lawsuit as a cudgel to influence or intimidate.
This can also be exacerbated by ‘friendly’ (corrupt) courts that allow or even encourage this behavior.
It takes quite a bit of frivolous filing to get hit with any sanctions or fines.
A single frivolous lawsuit happens here and there, it's when people/organizations are clearly malicious and abusing the system by filing continuous suits against others.
If Musk donated money to a nonprofit and now the nonprofit is using the money to make profit, that sounds like he was defrauded to me. They took his money under false pretenses. Not a lawyer either, so it may turn out technically he does not have standing, but naively it sure looks like he has.
I don't understand the framing of your question, is it "since he donated, he didn't expect anything in return, so he is not harmed no matter what they do"? Kinda seems like people asking for donations should not lie about the reason for the donation, even if it is a donation.
OpenAI has received $60 million in donations throughout its existence. $40 million came straight from Musk and the other $20 million came from Open Philanthropy. Musk has said that he donated $50 million, so he may have given $10 million to Open Philanthropy to fund their donation.
But even if a nonprofit suddenly started making a profit, seems like that would mostly be an IRS tax exemption violation rather than a breach of contract with the donors...? But again, I'm not a lawyer.
And OpenAI also has a complex structure in which the nonprofit controls a for-profit subsidiary, or something like that, similar to how Mozilla the nonprofit owns the for-profit Mozilla corp. I think Patagonia is similarly set up.
> I don't understand the framing of your question, is it "since he donated, he didn't expect anything in return, so he is not harmed no matter what they do"? Kinda seems like people asking for donations should not lie about the reason for the donation, even if it is a donation.
I guess donors can make restricted gifts, but if they don't, do they have a LEGAL (as opposed to merely ethical) right to expect the nonprofit to "do its mission" broadly? There are a gazillion nonprofits out there, and if every donor can micromanage them by alleging they are not following their mission, there would be millions of lawsuits... but then again, the average donor probably has somewhat less money and lawyers than Musk.
It’s not just a question in what you say the money is for it’s also a question of what the charity says the money is for.
A self defined cancer charity spending large sums on public information during the early days of the COVID outbreak likely has wiggle room. That same charity spending most of it’s money on scholarships for music students doesn’t. The second case suggests they raised money under false pretenses and would therefore face serious legal issues.
In practice large organizations that generally do what they say probably aren’t a risk. But the claim is essentially OpenAI abandoned its mission without returning the funds or what they used them for, which is a problem.
To be clear charities can pivot over time. If they active their primary mission or collect new funds under a different mission that’s generally fine. But a wildlife sanctuary can’t just use it’s land to build a collage.
Just because you donate money doesn’t mean the charity or nonprofit (or whatever OpenAi is), can do as they like. They may still be committing fraud if they are not using the money in the way that they claim.