According to the account of someone who has a substantial vested interest in that being the case. (It might be the case, in which "they got what they asked for".)
In a case where each side has a substantial vested interest in their story being accepted as true, it's wise to be skeptical of the claims on both sides and look for other, corroborating or contradicting evidence.
Comments
He wanted out completely and no association after first project failed
https://twitter.com/emostaque/status/1680774535342358528?s=4...
According to the account of someone who has a substantial vested interest in that being the case. (It might be the case, in which "they got what they asked for".)
In a case where each side has a substantial vested interest in their story being accepted as true, it's wise to be skeptical of the claims on both sides and look for other, corroborating or contradicting evidence.
It's pretty clear cut as his suit has three claims
1. Did not inform him of pivot and generative AI art (false, even generated AI art for him)
2. Did not inform him of fundraise/inflows (also false)
3. Either of the above are not legal under Delaware law (also false)
We will find out in a few months I suppose.