Ask Onix
Jury rules Musk filed OpenAI lawsuit too late
A California jury unanimously rejected Elon Musk's claims against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman on Monday, ruling that the Tesla and SpaceX founder had waited too long to sue. The decision effectively invalidated all of Musk's allegations due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Musk's allegations and OpenAI's defense
Musk had accused Altman of breaching a non-profit agreement by converting OpenAI into a for-profit entity after Musk contributed $38 million (£28.5 million) in its early days. He argued that Altman deceived him by accepting the funds while abandoning OpenAI's original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
During the trial, Altman testified that Musk not only supported the shift to a for-profit model but also sought long-term control of the company. Altman recounted a tense exchange where co-founders questioned Musk about succession plans, to which Musk reportedly responded that control might pass to his children.
Trial highlights and testimony
Jurors deliberated for approximately two hours after three weeks of reviewing internal communications and hearing testimony from key figures, including Musk, Altman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Musk had also accused Microsoft of facilitating OpenAI's transition to a for-profit structure, though those claims were dismissed following the jury's verdict on the primary allegations.
A Microsoft spokesperson stated that the facts and timeline of the case had long been clear, reaffirming the company's commitment to its partnership with OpenAI.
Musk's reaction and legal experts weigh in
Within hours of the verdict, Musk criticized the decision on X (formerly Twitter), calling it a "free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years." He also labeled the presiding judge an "activist" who used the jury as a "fig leaf." The post was later deleted.
Musk vowed to appeal, arguing that the jury did not rule on the merits of the case but instead relied on a "calendar technicality." However, legal experts suggested the odds of a successful appeal were low. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, described the jury's decision as a "very fact-based" resolution of a complex dispute.
"This case seemed kind of weird and crazy, but this is why we trust juries, because they bring the common sense of the community to resolve factual disputes."
Carl Tobias, University of Richmond School of Law
OpenAI celebrates verdict as Musk vows to fight on
OpenAI spokesman Sam Singer hailed the verdict as a "tremendous victory" outside the Oakland courthouse, dismissing Musk's lawsuit as an attempt to "slow down a competitor." William Savitt, OpenAI's lead attorney, went further, stating that the jury concluded Musk had lied about the company's origins and that the lawsuit "bears no relationship with reality."
Marc Toberoff, Musk's lawyer, countered that the legal battle was far from over, declaring, "This war is not over, and I'd sum it up in one word: appeal." Legal analysts, however, cautioned that appeals of jury verdicts are difficult to win. Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer, noted online that such challenges rarely succeed.
Broader implications and public perception
Sarah Federman, a conflict resolution expert at the University of San Diego, compared the courtroom clash between Musk and Altman to a battle between "Godzilla and King Kong," suggesting neither billionaire emerged unscathed in the court of public opinion.
"We cannot relate to these people-their wealth or their power."
Sarah Federman, University of San Diego
The lawsuit, filed years after Musk's 2018 departure from OpenAI, marked the culmination of growing animosity between the two tech leaders. As OpenAI's ChatGPT gained global prominence, Musk intensified his criticism of Altman and the company, prompting OpenAI to publish a detailed blog post in 2024 refuting Musk's claims.
