You think the shareholders of the non-profit's for-profit subsidiary should sue themselves for profiting from a non-profit?

That doesn't make sense and is completely backwards. The allegedly damaged party is society, with the major shareholders as defendants.

As a pro se litigant this probably won't go far. But the directionality of the suit seems correct.

> IANAL too, but if there is indeed a legal case for material misrepresentation, it would make more sense to be brought by OpenAI shareholders

The case is for material misrepesentation to benefit OpenAI shareholders at the expense of the identified intended beneficiaries of (and donors to) the OpenAI nonprofit. Why would the beneficiaries of the fraud challenge it?

> or the FTC, not some random dude from Texas.

The law often creates multiple different parties with a legitimate and enforceable interewt in the same requirement; while the plaintiff here doesn’t have the strongest standing claim in the world, it is not diminished for thr fact that some of the allegations create much stronger claims for, say, the IRS and state tax authorities or donors to the nonprofit (particularly the accusations of the nonprofit being fraudulently organized and operated for self-dealing for the commercial benefit of certain of its organizers.)

That will probably be an early point of litigation, does the non-profit’s behavior of depriving you from these tools like GPT4 amount to damages such that you have standing to bring this case. So that's a huge hurdle. Might be why it's brought pro se.

In some ways it's a more powerful result if plaintiff prevails though, as it dramatically increases the amount of legal stakeholders in the activity of OpenAI... “You filed as a non-profit, now if you start acting like a for-profit, anyone who is systematically excluded from your business dealings can sue you.”

What's wrong with the guy from texas that he shouldn't do it?