Image: Alex Photo Stock/Shutterstock.com

Sometimes a bad plan is enough. In this case, there were several—and in the end, a lot of money was at stake. A company CEO wanted to wriggle out of a million-dollar commitment. His own lawyers didn’t think that was a good idea. So instead, he asked a chatbot. The result: a lost lawsuit and a pretty embarrassing moment.

The deal that suddenly became too expensive

In 2021, the gaming company Krafton acquired the studio behind “Subnautica.” It was a major deal, worth around $500 million. It sounds like a success—until you look at the details.

Because one part of the contract was quite something: if “Subnautica 2” did well, the development team was set to receive an additional $250 million. That’s a lot of money, sure. But that’s exactly what was agreed upon.

The problem: Internally, everything pointed to exactly that happening.

Lawyers are holding things up—but the boss isn't

The company's legal team made it clear pretty early on that there was no easy way out of this situation. A contract is a contract. Even a change in leadership wouldn't change that.

Added to this were the usual warnings: legal risks, damage to the company’s reputation, and sending the wrong message internally. But the CEO apparently wasn’t willing to accept that.

The Unusual "Advisor"

So he looked for another source. He asked ChatGPT. At first, the bot responded cautiously and made it clear that the situation was difficult. But after further probing, it did offer some suggestions: renegotiate, apply pressure, develop a strategy, and, if necessary, take legal action.

That’s exactly what happened. Internally, the whole thing was known as “Project X.” It sounds like a secret project—but it was more of a risky move.

The studio management was put under pressure and later even fired. Officially, it was due to misconduct. During the proceedings, however, many of these allegations seemed rather contrived.

Things are going to get awkward in court

Things got interesting when internal communications surfaced. In an email, the CEO outlined the plan—and specifically mentioned ChatGPT.

The judge then took decisive action: the dismissals were overturned, and the management was reinstated. And the bonus payment? That’s still on the table. What’s more, the deadlines were even extended.

What remains of the matter

The case almost seems like an anecdote, but it’s actually quite serious. Of course, you can draw inspiration from tools. Gathering ideas, exploring different perspectives—it’s all worthwhile. But: Anyone who ignores clear warnings and instead looks for a more convenient answer is taking a risk.

And that is exactly what happened here. The problem wasn't the technology itself. It was the decision to use it as a shortcut.

In the end, one image sticks in your mind—one you won’t easily forget: a CEO who bypasses his own experts—and pays a pretty high price for it.