United States District Judge Susan K. DeClercq of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a pro se complaint against “ChatGPT,” Sam Altman and Elon Musk on 23 September 2026, the same day the court granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The ruling, issued under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), held that Warren Kenneth Beard’s publicly discussed AI design could not support a trade-secret claim and that § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act creates no private right of action the court’s opinion shows.
Key points
- Judge DeClercq granted Beard’s in forma pauperis application but dismissed the complaint on 23 September 2026
- The court found Beard “freely discussed” his AI design online, extinguishing any trade-secret protection
- Claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Michigan’s Uniform Trade Secret Act failed
- The FTC Act § 5 claim was dismissed because no private right of action exists
- Beard was denied permission to appeal in forma pauperis
Judge DeClercq dismisses complaint on filing day
Beard filed his complaint in June 2026, alleging that the defendants misappropriated his trade secrets in creating ChatGPT. He also asserted a claim under § 5 of the FTC Act. The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act standard, which requires dismissal of any claim that does not state a claim upon which a court can grant a judicial remedy. Even under the liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings, the court found the complaint deficient.
Public disclosure bars trade-secret claims
The court held that Beard’s own admission that he “freely discussed” the “general parameters of [his] design” via email and tweet meant the information was publicly available. Citing Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. and Wysong Corp. v. M.I. Indus., the court ruled that public disclosure extinguishes any property right in the information. Therefore, Beard failed to establish the existence of a trade secret, a required element under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and Michigan’s Uniform Trade Secret Act.
FTC Act provides no private right of action
Beard’s claim under § 5 of the FTC Act was dismissed on the authority of Morales v. Walker Motors Sales, Inc., which held that no private right of action exists under that provision.
The court denied Beard permission to appeal in forma pauperis, finding an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
