A nine‑person jury in Oakland delivered a unanimous advisory verdict on Sunday, concluding that Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, its chief executive Sam Altman, co‑founder Greg Brockman and Microsoft was filed too late under the statute of limitations. The finding ends the three‑week trial without addressing whether the defendants breached a charitable trust or engaged in unjust enrichment.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the case in the Northern District of California, indicated before deliberations that she would likely follow the jury’s recommendation. If she does, Musk’s effort to remove Altman from OpenAI’s leadership, unwind the company’s $852 billion recapitalization and force up to $134 billion in disgorgement to the nonprofit arm will be effectively halted.
The jury’s reasoning
The jury’s task was narrowly defined: determine whether Musk filed his claims within the legally prescribed time frame. Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018 but did not file suit until February 2024, a six‑year gap that his lawyers struggled to justify. Musk testified that he only learned of OpenAI’s alleged deviation from its nonprofit mission in 2022, when Microsoft was preparing a $10 billion investment. OpenAI’s counsel argued that the pivotal events—creation of a for‑profit subsidiary in 2019 and Microsoft’s initial $1 billion infusion that same year—were public knowledge well before Musk’s filing deadline.
All nine jurors agreed that the alleged harms occurred before the filing deadline, rejecting Musk’s argument that the clock should start when he discovered the misconduct. The verdict was advisory, meaning the judge must issue a final ruling, but her prior comments suggest the decision will stand.
Implications for OpenAI and Musk
For OpenAI, the verdict removes a significant obstacle at a critical juncture. The company completed its conversion to a public‑benefit corporation in October 2025, retaining a 26 percent stake for its original nonprofit entity while Microsoft holds 27 percent. A public market debut valued near $1 trillion is on the horizon, and the lawsuit’s dismissal clears uncertainty around governance and capital‑raising prospects.
The decision also leaves unanswered a broader legal question: whether individual donors can challenge a nonprofit AI lab’s shift to a for‑profit model under charitable‑trust law. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who extracted safety conditions as part of approving the conversion, declined to join Musk’s suit, reinforcing the view that enforcement rests with state authorities rather than private plaintiffs.
For Musk, the loss marks a costly setback. He invested personal capital and reputation in the trial, testified that he was defending charitable institutions, and sought to direct any damages to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm. The jury’s dismissal was procedural, not substantive, but it undermines his broader strategy to curb what he perceives as corporate looting of AI research.
Musk’s own AI venture, xAI, founded in 2023, is now valued at roughly $97 billion and has recently merged with SpaceX. OpenAI’s attorneys framed the lawsuit as a competitive tactic aimed at slowing a rival, a characterization Musk denied. Whether his legal team will appeal the verdict hinges on whether the factual finding about the timing of his knowledge is reviewable—a question that could shape future AI‑related litigation.
In the meantime, the most expensive and closely watched AI trial in history concludes not with a judgment on the merits of OpenAI’s governance, but with a procedural ruling that the plaintiff waited too long to bring his case.
This article was written with the assistance of AI.
News Factory SEO helps you automate news content for your site.