The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judge Demands List of All Indirect Co-Owners of OpenAI, in Libel Lawsuit Against OpenAI
In Walters v. OpenAI, LLC, plaintiff sued OpenAI [link fixed] after it hallucinated false statements about plaintiff (in response to a query by a third party). Plaintiff sued in Georgia state court, and OpenAI removed the case to federal court, on the theory that this is a lawsuit between citizens of different states and has at least $75,000 at issue (so-called "diversity jurisdiction"). But OpenAI, LLC is a "limited liability company," and under federal law an LLC is the citizen of all the states where its members (i.e., co-owners) are citizens; and if the members are LLCs, then the LLC is the citizen of all the states where its members' members are citizens, and so on, indefinitely.
OpenAI therefore had to file a declaration discussing the citizenship of its members, which it did. But Friday's order from Judge Michael L. Brown (N.D. Ga.) says that's not enough:
Defendant still has not shown the Court has diversity jurisdiction because it has not yet established the citizenship of OpenAI Holdings, LLC and Aestas Management Company, LLC (both of which are entities in Defendant's membership structure). Defendant claims (1) OpenAI Holdings, LLC has "[m]embers who are citizens of California and Michigan, or are citizens of other countries"; and (2) "Aestas Management Company, LLC's members are citizens of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington, or are citizens of other countries, but not Georgia." (Dkt. 22 paras. 13c, 14.) These allegations are insufficient. Defendant must affirmatively identify by name each member of an LLC and then allege whatever specific facts are necessary to establish the citizenship of that member. The Court will give Defendant one last chance to do so. Defendant must file, no later than October 6, 2023, a single consolidated document showing the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Failure to do so will result in remand [to state court].
I expect that OpenAI will indeed file this comprehensive list, that its lawyers have confirmed that none of the indirect members are citizens of Georgia (where Walters is a citizen), and the case will thus stay in federal court. Still, I expect that some businesspeople and journalists will find it interesting to have this whole ownership structure revealed in one handy document.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Still, I expect that some businesspeople and journalists will find it interesting to have this whole ownership structure revealed in one handy document."
Is this a novel case?
Seems like LLCs would have been defendants many times before and this would not be a new situation.
It's not novel, Volokh has covered a few other such cases over the years. And I suspect it's something he doesn't watch nearly as closely as, say, judges approving or denying pseudonymous filings.
Here's an example from a couple of years ago:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/06/marc-rotenberg-v-politico-llc-seems-likely-to-get-thrown-out-of-federal-court/?itm_source=parsely-api
From the context, I believe he's just referring to the specific ownership structure of OpenAI.
Of course it’s a common situation. The question is whether the judge’s demand is over-broad and unusual, which it certainly seems it ought to be. It seems to me that ONE member of OpenAI’s ownership not being a citizen of Georgia should be sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. And what are the prospects of an interlocutory appeal on this point? C’mon EV, recognize the obvious questions.
Self-correction: According to this source...
https://businesslawtoday.org/2019/07/diversity-jurisdiction-involving-llc-member-citizenship-key/
... OpenAI needs to prove that NONE of its "members" are "citizens" of GA.
removed
It’s not a novel situation, but many (individual, real people) investors use LLCs and overlapping layers of LLCs to gain both an insulation from liability, and anonymity of their investments.
Which is fine, unless you want to remove to federal court on the basis of diversity. 28 USC 1332 allows the judge to peel back the layers of the onion (through LLCs, partnerships, and trusts) until it gets to the beneficial “citizens of a State” or “citizens or subjects of a foreign state.”
Sometimes this pressure is enough to make the true principals of an LLC voluntarily remand/consent to remand (rather than being revealed to the public).
Nonsense.. 28 USC 1332: "2)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which—
(A)ANY member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant;..." (emphasis added)
The class of plaintiffs resides exclusively in GA. Does OpenAI "reside" in GA? By the plain language of the law OpenAI ought to be able to meet its burden of proof for diversity of jurisdiction without going beyond proving that it does not. Which ought not require disclosure on the scale that is demanded. What reason do you have to think it does?
Unless this is a class action, the provision you cite doesn't apply.
My bad. The relevant provision is…
” (a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between— (1)citizens of different States; …”
And, it turns out, OpenAI needs to prove that none of its members are citizens of Georgia.
Hence, " Defendant must affirmatively identify by name each member of an LLC [are OpenAI Holdings, LLC and Aestas Management Company, LLC an exhaustive list?] and then allege whatever specific facts are necessary to establish the citizenship of that member." The LLCs themselves do not have a "citizenship", as best I can determine.
The AI isn’t at fault. It’s those promoting it, or pushing its results that are. Using it is saying, “Tell me a story about X, possibly completely made up BS.”
Shall it prepend stories with that disclaimer? People get to make up nasty stories about other people, including non-famous ones, as long as they admit it isn’t true.
Or do I misunderstand things? Sex stories about real people seem to be safe, as fiction, no matter how dirty as a participant.
"Or do I misunderstand things? Sex stories about real people seem to be safe, as fiction, no matter how dirty as a participant."
I think you misunderstand.
My understanding is that fiction is not completely immune to defamation where living real people are used as characters. Put a real person in a bad enough light and there can be liability despite presenting it as fiction.
The other issue is that there are other causes of action that a real person can bring if used as a character in a fictional story. Some states protect rights of publicity.
fiction is not completely immune to defamation where living real people are used as characters
A friend in publishing told me that he'd tell writers, if your character is based on say Elizabeth Taylor, have a scene where that character meets Elizabeth Taylor.
cute idea!
A case where a user has asked for a “story” about the plaintiff, “possibly with made-up bullshit,” and it was presented as such, would be a totally different case from this one. Here the user asked for facts about the plaintiff, and the answer was presented as such.
OpenAI didn’t merely fail to warn. It actively marketed ChatGPT as a composer of factual narratives, not as a fiction writer. Having gained publicity with that spin on things, it cannot now pretend its marketing never happened after the fact.
On review, agree, you are correct. The plaintiff here didn’t sue ChatGPT itself. Rather, the plaintiff sued OpenAI, which as you say promoted it.
Right . . . the dog that bites someone doesn't get sued, the owner does.
"The AI isn’t at fault. It’s those promoting it, or pushing its results that are."
Exactly no one is saying "The AI is at fault." What would that even mean? The claim is, I assume, that OpenAI is a fault, and the prominence and explicitness of its disclaimers (in how small a print and how clearly does it say the "possibly completely made up BS" bit?) certainly seem to me like a judiciable question.
Link for the case (0.0.0.6) doesnt work for me.
I did find for myself
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/walters-openai-complaint-gwinnett-county.pdf
You can't directly grab the text out of that image. But here's Dockets and Filings:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1:2023cv03122/318259, and it would seem you can get the documents there via PACER.
I like to have a text-to-speech ap read stuff to me while I'm doing other things, so I'll let someone else pursue this further for now.
A extremely timely post, particularly as questions concerning Blue Ridge Rock Festival LLC, Purpose Driven Events LLC, Project E LLC and others involved in the musical festival industry continue to swirl. Often, the business participants in such ventures are assumed to be small, local enterprises rather widely-dispersed, deliberately structured organizations: diversity of parties is a double-edged sword.
It's conceivable that an LLC might not be able to discover all its indirect owners.
That seems pretty unlikely for this or any sort of sophisticated LLC.
To a non-lawyer, this "diversity jurisdiction" rule is insane.
The underlying premise makes sense - absent other circumstances, two folks in Delaware should stay in a Delaware court to resolve their differences. But this endlessly-extended interpretation of ownership lets state courts assert jurisdiction (or more accurately, lets one party to the case cherry-pick their jurisdiction) even when the other party's connection to the jurisdiction is ridiculously attenuated. The jurisdiction rules badly need recalibrating.
That's not quite how it works. In most cases like this one, the case is initially brought in state court in the state where some or all of the events in dispute took place or where the plaintiff suffered damages. That court has jurisdiction. But an out-of-state defendant can then remove the case to the federal district court sitting in that state if it can prove that none of the defendants is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff. That determination is easy enough for individual defendants and corporations. But with LLCs, it is complex because they are considered citizens of every state of which their owners are citizens. An LLC with a large and complex ownership structure (as this one apparently is) is functionally a citizen of many different states.
Maybe this rule could be reformed, it only for the sake of efficiency. But it is not accurate to say that it allows states or plaintiffs to cherry-pick their jurisdiction. It is a rule about when federal courts have concurrent "diversity" jurisdiction. Whether the state court where the case was originally brought has jurisdiction is a completely separate issue unrelated to the LLC ownership rule.
"...LLCs, it is complex because they are considered citizens of every state of which their owners are citizens."
As far as I can see OpenAI need only prove that its members are not citizens of Georgia. IT is not a citizen of anywhere.
https://businesslawtoday.org/2019/07/diversity-jurisdiction-involving-llc-member-citizenship-key/
You're confused. The rules at issue here do not have anything to do — one way or the other — with picking a jurisdiction where one party has only a "ridiculously attenuated" connection to that jurisdiction. They don't have anything to do with jurisdictions at all; the rules at issue here are about whether the case will be heard in federal or state court in a given jurisdiction.
That first link seems broken.
The judge is following the right rule of law. That's pretty clear. But the LLC-as-partnership rule for diversity purposes is really, really stupid. The better rule is that only the citizenship of the legal entity should matter.
Filing a civil lawsuit just for the purpose of forcing disclosure of confidential information via discovery or other means.
Is that widespread? Is it an ethics violation? Are there cases of sanctions for that reason?
As I understand, The plaintiff in this case did not file suit to force disclosure.
The plaintiff filed in state court. If it stays in state court the disclosure at issue is not required.
The defendant filed in federal court to have the case removed to the federal court. To remove the case to federal court the defendant has to prove diversity jurisdiction applies.
The disclosure at issue is necessary to prove diversity jurisdiction.
" ... a hallucinating AI program "
Astounding, indeed !
Is the patient receiving treatment ?