Yasas De Silva Law Journal

07/05/2026

During his testimony last week, Musk tried at one point to play the part of his own legal counsel, accusing OpenAI's lawyer William Savitt of asking him leading questions.

Gonzalez Rogers quickly shut him down.

"That's not how it works," she interjected.

Unlike a lawyer conducting direct examination of their own client, Savitt was allowed to lead, she instructed Musk.

"Let's remind everyone in the courtroom that you are not a lawyer," she told Musk.

"I am not a lawyer," Musk acknowledged. "Well, technically I did take Law 101 in school," he added, drawing laughter from the packed courtroom gallery.

But he reaffirmed her point: "Yes – I am not a lawyer."

In Gonzalez Rogers, Musk may have met his match.

01/05/2026

‘Not OK to steal a charity’: Elon Musk testifies in legal battle with Sam Altman over OpenAI......................................................................................................................................

“Fundamentally, I think they’re going to try to make this lawsuit ... very complicated, but it’s actually very simple,” said Musk. “Which is that it's not OK to steal a charity.”

In his opening statement, Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, said Altman and Brockman, with Microsoft’s help, had taken control of a charity “whose mission was the safe, open development of artificial intelligence”. Musk is seeking damages and Altman’s removal from OpenAI’s board.

What did Musk say?
Musk was the first witness called to testify in the trial on Tuesday, with his lawyer starting off by asking about his life story.

This included details about his move, at 17, from South Africa to Canada, where for a time Musk said he worked as a lumberjack among other odd jobs, then to the US. He recounted the slew of companies he founded and runs, including SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink and others.

Asked how he has time for everything, Musk said he works 80 to 100 hours a week, doesn't take vacations and owns no vacation homes or yachts.

Molo also asked Musk about his views on AI. Musk said he expects AI to be “smarter than any human” as soon as next year. Musk said a longstanding concern about AI is the question of what happens when computers become much smarter than humans.

Comparing it to having a “very smart child,” Musk said when the child grows up “you can't control that child,” but you can instil values such as honesty, integrity and being good.

Musk recounted his version of OpenAI's founding, which he said essentially happened because of a discussion he had with Google co-founder Larry Page, who called him a “speciesist" for elevating the survival of humanity over that of AI.

The kinship between Musk and Altman was forged in 2015 when they agreed to build AI more responsibly and safely than the profit-driven companies controlled by Google's Page and Sergey Brin and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, according to evidence submitted ahead of the trial.

At that time, Musk said, Google had all the money, all the computers and all the talent for AI. “There was no counterbalance.”

Musk recalled there was discussion early on about alternative sources for funding OpenAI beyond donations, and he wasn't opposed to it having a for-profit arm, but “the tail shouldn't wag the dog.” There would be a profit limit, and once artificial general intelligence, AGI, was “figured out,” the for-profit would cease to exist.

01/05/2026

A subplot of the Musk-Altman trial: Which billionaires deserve the keys to the God machine?

21/04/2026

26/03/2026

Meta and Google just lost a landmark social media addiction case. A tech law expert explains the fallout

KGM’s case paves the way for the many other actions seeking damages from social media platforms for the effects of addiction.

A Los Angeles jury found Meta (Instagram/Facebook) and Alphabet (YouTube) liable for designing addictive platforms that harmed a young user's mental health in a landmark trial. The 20-year-old plaintiff was awarded over $6 million in damages after accusing the companies of causing addiction, body dysmorphia, and depression. This ruling sets a legal precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits.

Key Details of the Trial:
The Case: The plaintiff, known as KGM, claimed that Instagram and YouTube were designed as "addiction machines" that caused her severe emotional and physical distress.

The Verdict: The jury found the platforms negligent in their design and that their products were addictive.

Damages: The plaintiff was awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and another $3 million in punitive damages (total ~ $6M, though some reports indicate a total $4.3M in the initial phase), with Meta held 70% responsible and Google 30%.

20/03/2026

The Court further noted the relevance of the Reciprocal Recognition, Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Act No. 49 of 2024, while emphasizing that the dispute must be resolved in accordance with the law as it stood at the time the action was instituted in 2012.

Quoting the statutory requirement, Justice De Silva observed:

“Section 19(2) of the Ordinance mandates that the cause of action on which the divorce was granted shall be either adultery subsequent to marriage, or of malicious desertion, or of incurable impotence at the time of such marriage. In my view, a foreign judgement granting a divorce must comply with this provision.”

16/03/2026

11/03/2026

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday allowed passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for over 13 years following a fall from a building.

The court said Medical boards concluded that continuing treatment merely prolonged biological existence without any prospect of recovery. The bench also directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to shift Rana to its palliative care centre and oversee the withdrawal of life support in a dignified manner.

Top quotes from the judgment
“Harish Rana… was once a young, bright boy.” The court noted that a fall from the fourth floor of his accommodation left him in a persistent vegetative state with severe paralysis, as per LiveLaw.
“If the medical treatment is not making any difference, there is no point in continuing with such treatment and making Harish suffer for no good reason,” The bench said.
“Continuation of treatment merely prolongs his biological existence without any therapeutic improvement.”
“When the primary and secondary medical boards have certified withdrawal of life support, there is no need for the court’s intervention,” the bench stated, as per PTI.
“Life support must be withdrawn in a humane and dignified manner,” The court said, directing AIIMS to implement a tailored plan through palliative care.
“To be or not to be…” Justice Pardiwala referenced the famous Shakespeare line while discussing the right to die with dignity, reported news agency ANI.

09/03/2026

When does the law of naval warfare apply?

News that a United States submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Iranian warship IRIS Dena about 40 nautical miles off Sri Lanka this week took many observers by surprise

But the incident also highlights something rarely well understood outside military and legal circles: the law of naval warfare.

Many have wondered: was this attack lawful? And who was under an obligation to rescue survivors?

When does the law of naval warfare apply?

The law of naval warfare is a subset of the law of armed conflict.

The law of naval warfare sets out permissions and protections for combatants, civilians and neutral actors engaged in conflict at sea.

Importantly, it applies regardless of whether the resort to force was lawful.

In other words, you’re supposed to follow the law of the sea even if your whole justification for war in the first place isn’t legal under international law.

What’s more, the conduct of operations at sea is regulated by the law of naval warfare whether or not war has been formally declared.

The law of naval warfare also takes precedence over the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (where the two come into tension).

This reflects the principle of lex specialis in international law, meaning the more specific body of law applies.

These rules have developed over centuries as states sought to regulate the conduct of conflict at sea while still allowing navies to operate effectively.

So, was it legal for the US to sink the Iranian warship?
Yes, it was a lawful target.

Under the law of naval warfare, warships belonging to a state engaged in an international armed conflict are military objectives by nature. The rules say they may be lawfully targeted.

Such attacks may occur on the high seas or within the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of the states that are party to the international armed conflict (the belligerents). This means, effectively, that such an attack could happen anywhere outside the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of neutral states.

If the Iranian warship was within Sri Lankan waters (that is, within 12 nautical miles of the Sri Lankan coast) at the time, the attack wouldn’t have been lawful.

But in this case, IRIS Dena was reportedly operating outside Sri Lanka’s territorial waters and therefore constitutes a lawful military target.

What does the law say about rescue of survivors?
The law of naval warfare also sets out obligations regarding the rescue of survivors.

Under the Second Geneva Convention of 1949, parties to a conflict must – after each engagement – take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick.

These rules apply to naval warfare and require belligerents, so far as military circumstances permit, to assist survivors at sea.

In practice, however, submarines face particular challenges in fulfilling this obligation. Surfacing to rescue survivors may expose them to significant risk. You also can’t usually fit a large number of survivors on a submarine.

If a submarine cannot safely surface to rescue survivors, it may instead facilitate rescue by reporting their location to other vessels or authorities.

This practice has been noted in some key legal commentary on submarine warfare.

The swift response of the Sri Lankan navy, which rescued 32 sailors from IRIS Dena, suggests authorities were informed quickly of the incident. (Sri Lankan officials say 87 bodies were also retrieved).

How Sri Lankan authorities were informed is not yet clear, but it seems likely the US navy transmitted the location of the survivors.

Given the damage suffered by IRIS Dena and the reported casualties, the ship’s crew was unlikely to have been able to transmit their location themselves.

This may also explain why early reports suggested a submarine had sunk the vessel, before the US confirmed its involvement.

It is also unlikely the crew of IRIS Dena would have immediately known they had been struck by a submarine-launched torpedo. Such a torpedo would typically be fired from very far away, beyond the detection range of a ship’s hull-mounted sonar.

A lawful military target
While debate continues over the legal justification for the United States entering the conflict with Iran, the conduct of hostilities at sea is nonetheless governed by the law of naval warfare.

Under that framework, IRIS Dena therefore constitutes a lawful military target, and efforts to facilitate the rescue of survivors are consistent with those obligations.

06/03/2026

Case No.: CA/RTI/003/24
Judgment Date: 05/03/2026
Delivered by: His Lordship Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, J.

“Private media organizations perform a vital public function and must be held accountable for operating in the public interest, rather than solely for profit. Since airwaves are public property, they must be used to ensure a plurality of opinions and accurate reporting. We are of the view that disclosing requested information would not infringe upon press freedoms but would instead strengthen the right to information under Article 14A of the Constitution.” — His Lordship Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, J.

Judgment Link: https://shorturl.at/BBqcR