Jury Rejects Musk's Claims Against OpenAI: Trial Recap and Verdict Analysis

Verdict Overview

On Monday, May 18, the jury delivered an advisory verdict in favor of OpenAI, finding that Elon Musk's lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the verdict, effectively ending Musk's attempt to unwind OpenAI's corporate restructuring and remove its leaders.

Background: The Musk-Altman Feud

The trial marked the culmination of a public and legal battle between two titans of artificial intelligence. Elon Musk, co-founder of OpenAI, sued CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman in 2024, alleging they abandoned the nonprofit's original mission to develop AI safely for humanity. Musk claimed the duo created a for-profit subsidiary that enriched themselves while betraying the founding principles. OpenAI countered that Musk was a disgruntled competitor, using the lawsuit to hobble a rival as his own AI company, xAI, prepared for an IPO.

Key Arguments in Court

Musk's Case: Broken Promises and Self-Dealing

Musk's legal team, led by Steven Molo, argued that Altman and Brockman violated a fundamental promise: that money Musk donated would keep OpenAI a nonprofit dedicated to humanity's benefit. Instead, they pointed to the creation of a for-profit subsidiary that made Altman and Brockman extraordinarily wealthy. Musk sought to unwind the 2025 restructuring that converted OpenAI's for-profit arm into a public benefit corporation, remove Altman and Brockman from leadership, and claim up to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft—money to be awarded to OpenAI's nonprofit.

OpenAI's Defense: Musk the Power-Seeker

OpenAI's lawyer Sarah Eddy countered that no such promise was ever made. She argued that Musk's real motive was to sabotage a competitor ahead of xAI's IPO. Altman himself testified, painting Musk as a power-seeker who wanted to control artificial general intelligence (AGI)—AI that can outperform humans on cognitive tasks. Altman described 2017 discussions where Musk sought control over any for-profit entity, and noted that when Musk left OpenAI to launch xAI, he tried to poach talent and funding.

Credibility Battles: Lies, Donkey Trophies, and Mugshots

The final week of testimony saw both sides attack each other's honesty. Altman was grilled about past statements and alleged self-dealing involving companies that do business with OpenAI. In a dramatic display, OpenAI introduced a golden trophy of a donkey's ass—a gift to an employee who was called a “jackass” for opposing Musk's aggressive push toward AGI. The trophy was presented as evidence of the company's commitment to safety over speed.

During closing arguments, lawyers projected unflattering mugshot-style photos of Musk and Altman side by side on a giant screen, underscoring the personal nature of the dispute. The jury was left to decide which narrative to believe: Musk's portrayal of Altman as a liar and schemer, or Altman's depiction of Musk as a vengeful power broker.

Closing Arguments and Demands

Musk's attorney hammered the theme of broken promises, while OpenAI's team stressed that the lawsuit was filed too late—years after the alleged misdeeds. They also highlighted that Musk's own company, xAI, was set to go public as part of SpaceX in June 2025 at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion. Meanwhile, OpenAI's own IPO plans, reportedly approaching a $1 trillion valuation, hung in the balance.

The Verdict and Its Implications

The jury's advisory verdict found that Musk's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, a ruling that Judge Rogers accepted. While the verdict is not binding, it signals the jury's agreement with OpenAI's timeline argument. If Judge Rogers had ruled for Musk, it could have upended OpenAI's IPO and corporate structure. Instead, the company moves forward, though the feud between Musk and Altman is far from over. For now, the jury has picked a side—and it is not Musk's.