Elon Musk’s claims of mistreatment by his OpenAI co-founders have failed after a unanimous verdict from nine California jurors. The jury determined that his lawsuits were filed too late, falling outside the legal statute of limitations.
Musk had accused Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft of effectively “stealing a charity” by establishing a for-profit affiliate of the frontier AI laboratory. However, the jury concluded that any potential harms suffered by Musk occurred prior to the legal deadlines for filing such claims.
While the trial delved into the complex and often dramatic history of OpenAI, featuring testimony from top Silicon Valley figures, it ultimately pivoted on narrow legal technicalities. The core of the trial examined whether and when Altman and the other defendants made and broke specific promises to Musk, but the case failed to convince the jury of a valid legal claim.
OpenAI’s defense centered on the statute of limitations, arguing that the alleged harms took place before specific cut-off dates in 2021 and 2022. Depending on the charge, these deadlines included August 5, 2021; August 5, 2022; and November 14, 2021. The jury found this argument persuasive, leading to a swift deliberation period.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers supported the decision, stating after the verdict, “There was a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot.”
The resolution of this case removes a significant existential threat to OpenAI—namely, a potential court-ordered restructuring—just as the company prepares for its reported IPO. OpenAI’s lead attorney, Bill Savitt, characterized the lawsuit as a “hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor,” adding that the jury quickly recognized the claims as an “after-the-fact contrivance.”
Microsoft, which was sued for allegedly aiding and abetting a breach of charitable trust, welcomed the verdict. A spokesperson reaffirmed the company's commitment to advancing AI at scale alongside OpenAI for global benefit.
The verdict arrived during a hearing meant to calculate potential damages. Although the discussion is now moot, Judge Rogers appeared skeptical of the damages estimate provided by Musk's expert, Dr. C. Paul Wazzan, who valued wrongful gains between $78.8 billion and $135 billion. The judge remarked that the analysis seemed "devoid of connection to the underlying facts."
In a post following the ruling, Musk appeared to frame the procedural dismissal as a moral victory, continuing to allege that Altman and Brockman enriched themselves at the expense of the original mission.
