A nine-person jury in Oakland unanimously found that Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI was filed too late, ending the trial on statute of limitations grounds without reaching the merits. The advisory verdict, if adopted by the judge, clears a major legal obstacle for OpenAI’s IPO path.TL;DR
Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft. A nine-person jury in Oakland returned a unanimous verdict on Sunday finding that Musk’s claims had been filed too late under the statute of limitations, ending the most consequential corporate governance trial in the history of artificial intelligence without reaching the merits of whether OpenAI’s leaders had “stolen a charity.”
The verdict is advisory, meaning Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California will make the final determination on liability. But she indicated before deliberations began that she would very likely follow the jury’s recommendation. If she does, Musk’s bid to remove Altman from OpenAI, unwind the company’s $852 billion restructuring, and direct up to $134 billion in disgorgement to OpenAI’s nonprofit foundation is effectively over.
The jury’s task was not to determine whether Altman and Brockman had betrayed OpenAI’s founding mission. It was to answer a narrower question first: did Musk file his lawsuit within the statutory time limit? Musk departed OpenAI’s board in 2018. He did not file suit until February 2024, a six-year gap that his legal team struggled to explain across three weeks of trial. Musk testified that he only discovered the full extent of OpenAI’s departure from its nonprofit mission in 2022, when Microsoft was preparing to invest $10 billion. OpenAI’s attorneys argued that the relevant events, including the creation of a for-profit subsidiary in 2019 and Microsoft’s initial $1 billion investment that same year, were public knowledge well within the filing window.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The jury agreed with OpenAI. All nine jurors found that the harms Musk alleged occurred before the deadline for filing his claims, making the lawsuit untimely regardless of its substance. The unanimous nature of the verdict is notable: not a single juror accepted Musk’s argument that the statute of limitations clock should start from his later discovery of the alleged misconduct.
The trial had been framed by both sides as a case that would define AI governance for a decade. Musk’s lead counsel Steven Molo opened the trial by telling jurors that Altman and Brockman “stole a charity,” while OpenAI attorney William Savitt countered that Musk “didn’t get his way at OpenAI” and filed suit only after founding his own competing AI company, xAI, in 2023.
Had the case reached the merits, the jury would have weighed two civil claims: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Musk donated approximately $44 million to OpenAI between 2015 and 2017, and argued that those contributions were effectively misappropriated when the company converted from a nonprofit research lab into a for-profit entity now valued at hundreds of billions of dollars. He was seeking Altman’s removal from leadership, the unwinding of OpenAI’s October 2025 recapitalisation into a public benefit corporation, and up to $134 billion in disgorgement from OpenAI and Microsoft.
Musk testified over three days that the case would set a precedent for charitable giving in America, renouncing any personal financial benefit and asking that damages be directed to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm. OpenAI’s defence argued that Musk himself had pushed to create a for-profit subsidiary as early as 2017, on the condition that he control it, and that when that demand was refused, he left the board.
Three weeks of testimony produced a parade of Silicon Valley figures. Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, and Musk himself all took the stand. The most damaging piece of evidence for OpenAI was a personal journal entry by Brockman, written in November 2017, in which he acknowledged that the company could not credibly claim commitment to a nonprofit structure if it was planning to become a benefit corporation months later. Judge Gonzalez Rogers had cited that entry directly in her January 2026 ruling allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Sutskever’s testimony complicated both sides. The former chief scientist, who played a central role in Altman’s brief ouster from the CEO position in November 2023, testified that he had spent months gathering evidence of what he called Altman’s pattern of deception, then later reversed course and said he regretted reinstating Altman. Altman, under cross-examination, acknowledged he had “told the occasional lie,” while five witnesses described him as dishonest.
OpenAI also called Shivon Zilis, the mother of four of Musk’s children, whose testimony did not corroborate Musk’s account of the founding commitments. And Musk himself was absent for closing arguments on 14 May, having joined President Trump’s delegation to Beijing, a fact OpenAI’s attorneys used pointedly before the jury.
The statute of limitations verdict, if adopted by Gonzalez Rogers, clears a significant legal obstacle for OpenAI at a critical moment. The company completed its conversion to a public benefit corporation in October 2025, with the original nonprofit retaining approximately 26 per cent ownership and Microsoft holding 27 per cent. It is preparing for a public market debut at a valuation approaching $1 trillion. A ruling that unwound that restructuring would have introduced immediate uncertainty over the company’s governance, its ability to raise capital, and the enforceability of safety conditions that California Attorney General Rob Bonta extracted as part of approving the conversion.
The verdict also sets a practical precedent, even if a narrow one. By finding that Musk’s claims were time-barred, the jury avoided establishing whether donors to nonprofit AI labs have standing to challenge for-profit conversions under charitable trust law. That question, which legal scholars had described as the central governance issue of the case, remains unanswered. The California attorney general had already declined to join Musk’s suit, and the conventional legal position is that enforcement of charitable trust obligations rests with state authorities, not individual donors.
The loss is a significant setback for Musk, who invested considerable personal capital, both financial and reputational, in the trial. He spent three days on the stand, called himself “a fool” for funding OpenAI, and framed the case as a defence of charitable institutions against corporate looting. The jury’s rejection was not on the merits of that argument but on the procedural ground that he waited too long to make it.
Musk’s own AI company, xAI, which he founded in 2023, has been valued at approximately $97 billion and recently merged with SpaceX. OpenAI’s attorneys argued throughout the trial that the lawsuit was a competitive tactic designed to slow a rival, a characterisation Musk denied but that the timing of his legal filings did little to dispel. Whether Musk appeals the verdict or accepts it will depend on his legal team’s assessment of whether the statute of limitations finding can be challenged on appeal, a question that turns on whether the jury’s factual determination about when Musk knew of the alleged harms is reviewable.
For now, the outcome is clear. The most expensive and most watched AI trial in history ended not with a ruling on whether OpenAI betrayed its mission, but with a finding that the man who helped create that mission waited too long to complain about it.
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
