> The existing statements would be libel if false. Libel isn't really an issue here, because the statement from the board hardly made any factual assertions in

> The existing statements would be libel if false. Libel isn't really an issue here, because the statement from the board hardly made any factual assertions in the first place: > Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI. There are a ton of possible interpretations of "he was not consistently candid". However, there are lots of things that people can sue for besides outright libel/slander. I made the argument elsewhere that the legal nitpicking here isn't really that significant, because it's pretty easy to argue that the tenor of the board announcement would at least make it sound to a reasonable observer that Altman did something egregious.