Chamath predicted that: (1) legal challenges over business vaccination requirements would reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and (2) the Court would issue a narrow ruling affirming that private businesses may decide to require vaccination as a condition of service or employment.

Here is what actually happened:

1. Supreme Court COVID‑vaccine cases

   • The Court heard major vaccine‑mandate cases in January 2022, most prominently National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, which challenged OSHA’s federal vaccine‑or‑test rule for large private employers, and Biden v. Missouri, which concerned the federal CMS mandate for health‑care facilities. In NFIB v. OSHA, the Court held that OSHA’s broad vaccine‑or‑test Emergency Temporary Standard exceeded the agency’s statutory authority and stayed the rule. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • Those cases were about what the federal government can require of employers, not about whether private businesses, acting on their own, have a constitutional or statutory right to impose vaccine requirements on employees or customers.

2. No Supreme Court merits ruling on private businesses’ own vaccine policies

   • There is no U.S. Supreme Court merits decision squarely addressing a purely private employer’s or private business’s self‑imposed COVID‑19 vaccine requirement for employees or customers.
   • Litigation over employer mandates has been decided mainly in lower courts and state supreme courts. For example, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hayes v. University Health Shreveport, LLC upheld a private hospital’s right to require staff vaccination and terminate non‑compliant at‑will employees, and the Fifth Circuit in Horvath v. City of Leander upheld an employer vaccine requirement with religious accommodations—but neither case is from the U.S. Supreme Court. (druganddevicelawblog.com)
   • The Supreme Court did receive emergency applications related to mandates (e.g., Klaassen v. Indiana University), but Justice Barrett’s one‑sentence denial of relief there did not create a written, precedential ruling that "businesses may decide" to require vaccines. (en.wikipedia.org)

3. Effect of NFIB v. OSHA is indirect, not the predicted ruling

   • After NFIB v. OSHA, legal commentators and law‑firm client alerts emphasized that the decision blocked OSHA’s mandate but left private employers generally free, under other applicable laws, to adopt their own vaccination policies if they wished. (phillipslytle.com)
   • However, that is an implication of the absence of a federal mandate, not a narrow Supreme Court holding that affirmatively establishes private businesses’ right to impose vaccine conditions on service or employment. The NFIB opinion itself is framed as an administrative‑law and statutory‑authority decision, not an employer‑rights decision. (en.wikipedia.org)

4. Enough time has passed

   • By late 2025, COVID‑19 emergency conditions have receded, and there is still no Supreme Court precedent matching the specific description Chamath gave (a narrow ruling affirming that private businesses may decide to require vaccination as a condition of service or employment). Overviews of U.S. COVID‑19 vaccine mandates list NFIB v. OSHA and Biden v. Missouri as the key Supreme Court cases, but none describe a decision of the type predicted. (en.wikipedia.org)

Because the Court did not issue the kind of narrow, pro‑business‑discretion ruling described—even though it did hear related vaccine‑mandate cases—the prediction’s core outcome is incorrect.