The Musk vs. OpenAI Trial: Key Questions and Answers from the Roundtable Discussion

In May 2026, MIT Technology Review hosted a roundtable discussion featuring Michelle Kim, an AI reporter and attorney who covered the Musk v. Altman trial, and Mat Honan, the editor in chief. The conversation explored the behind-the-scenes drama, legal arguments, and the broader impact of Elon Musk's unsuccessful lawsuit against OpenAI. Below, we distill that session into a Q&A format covering the trial's core issues, timeline, and takeaways.

• What was the core allegation in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI?
• How did the trial progress over its three weeks?
• What were the key arguments presented by each side?
• Why did Elon Musk ultimately lose the case?
• What are the implications of this trial for the AI race?
• What did key witnesses reveal during the trial?

What was the core allegation in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI?

Elon Musk claimed that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman deceived him over OpenAI’s non-profit status. Musk argued that when he co-founded OpenAI in 2015, it was explicitly structured as a non-profit to safely develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the public good, not for profit. He alleged that Altman and Brockman later abandoned that mission by converting to a for-profit model, personally enriching themselves and partnering with Microsoft. Musk sought to reverse that shift and recover damages, asserting that the founders had broken a trust agreement that should have kept OpenAI non-profit. The lawsuit centered on whether that original agreement was legally binding or just a vague understanding.

How did the trial progress over its three weeks?

The trial unfolded in three distinct phases. Week 1 saw Musk take the stand, claiming he was duped and warning that AGI could kill us all. He also admitted that his own AI company, xAI, distills OpenAI’s models. Week 2 featured OpenAI’s forceful rebuttal, with testimony from Shivon Zilis, a former Neuralink executive, who revealed that Musk had actually tried to poach Sam Altman to merge OpenAI into Tesla. Week 3 escalated into personal credibility attacks as both sides questioned each other’s honesty. Musk painted Altman as a power-hungry schemer; Altman countered that Musk was a sore loser in the AI race. The jury then began deliberations, weighing conflicting accounts of meetings and emails from 2015.

What were the key arguments presented by each side?

Musk’s team argued that Altman and Brockman violated an implied contract by prioritizing profit over safety. They pointed to early funding documents and public promises that OpenAI would never be a for-profit entity. Musk’s lawyers also cited the 2019 restructuring that created a capped-profit arm, claiming it was a bait-and-switch. OpenAI’s team countered that Musk fully supported the for-profit shift at the time, citing emails where he suggested a $1 billion investment. They argued that Musk’s lawsuit was about sour grapes after he lost control, not about broken promises. OpenAI also presented evidence that Musk’s own AI ventures, like xAI, are profit-driven, undermining his charitable stance. The jury ultimately found that no binding agreement existed.

Why did Elon Musk ultimately lose the case?

Musk lost because the jury concluded there was no legally enforceable contract that required OpenAI to remain non-profit. The original 2015 agreement was informal and lacked clear terms. Emails and testimonies showed that all parties knew the structure might evolve. Furthermore, Musk himself had proposed for-profit models in private discussions. The judge instructed the jury that without specific promises and mutual intent to be bound, Musk could not win. Additionally, the court found that Musk’s xAI had openly used OpenAI’s technology, weakening his claim of being deceived. Ultimately, the case boiled down to conflicting recollections, and the jury believed OpenAI’s version of events.

What are the implications of this trial for the AI race?

The trial set a precedent for how non-profit AI labs can evolve into for-profit entities. It confirmed that founders can change course unless explicitly barred by contracts. This may discourage future investors from relying on altruistic promises alone. The case also highlighted the competitive landscape: Musk’s xAI, Microsoft-backed OpenAI, and other players are in a heated race, and the trial exposed tensions over data, talent, and ethics. Additionally, the public gained insight into internal discussions about AI safety, making the debate around regulation more urgent. While the verdict was a win for OpenAI, it may spur moves toward clearer legal frameworks for AI governance.

What did key witnesses reveal during the trial?

Shivon Zilis testified that Musk attempted to recruit Sam Altman to lead AI at Tesla in 2017, proposing to merge OpenAI into the automaker. This contradicted Musk’s claim that he wanted OpenAI to remain independent and non-profit. Michelle Kim, the reporter covering the trial, noted that Zilis’s testimony was damaging to Musk’s credibility. Sam Altman painted Musk as a controlling figure who reneged on earlier agreements. Greg Brockman presented emails showing Musk actively supporting profit structures. The witness accounts, combined with documentary evidence, painted a picture of a complex relationship where profit and non-profit lines were blurry from the start. These revelations helped the jury view Musk’s suit as a personal grudge rather than a principled crusade.