Judge Doubts Musk Damages
What happened
A federal judge expressed skepticism about Elon Musk’s $134 billion damages claim against OpenAI, suggesting the figure may be wildly overstated and ordering validation of expert testimony by late April — a major legal hurdle for Musk's case reported. The pushback narrows the damages fight to expert methodology and could reshape how courts value alleged tech-era breaches of mission and IP.
Why it matters
The trial [is scheduled to begin on April 27, 2026]courthousenews.com in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland and the court docket shows the proceeding is expected to run through late May.courthousenews.com Musk’s damages notice rests on analysis by financial economist C. Paul Wazzan, who [the press reports has been deposed nearly 100 times and testified at trial more than a dozen times]techcrunch.com. Wazzan’s [model calculates]techbriefly.com that OpenAI’s “wrongful gains” fall between $65.5 billion and $109.43 billion and Microsoft’s between $13.3 billion and $25.06 billion, premised on Musk’s roughly $38 million seed contribution and public estimates of OpenAI’s current enterprise value.techbriefly.com OpenAI and Microsoft filed a pretrial motion seeking to exclude Opinions 3–6 of Dr. Wazzan (a motion set for the March 3, 2026 hearing on the docket) and accuse the report of being “made up,” “unverifiable” and legally unprecedented in its attribution approach.cdn.arstechnica.net
Key numbers
- A federal judge expressed skepticism about Elon Musk’s $134 billion damages claim against OpenAI, suggesting the figure may be wildly overstated and ordering validation of expert testimony by late April — a major legal hurdle for Musk's case reported.
- The trial [is scheduled to begin on April 27, 2026]courthousenews.com in the U.S.
- Paul Wazzan, who [the press reports has been deposed nearly 100 times and testified at trial more than a dozen times]techcrunch.com.
- Wazzan (a motion set for the March 3, 2026 hearing on the docket) and accuse the report of being “made up,” “unverifiable” and legally unprecedented in its attribution approach.cdn.arstechnica.net
What happens next
- The trial [is scheduled to begin on April 27, 2026]courthousenews.com in the U.S.
- District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland and the court docket shows the proceeding is expected to run through late May.courthousenews.com Musk’s damages notice rests on analysis by financial economist C.
- The pushback narrows the damages fight to expert methodology and could reshape how courts value alleged tech-era breaches of mission and IP.
Quick answers
What happened in Judge Doubts Musk Damages?
A federal judge expressed skepticism about Elon Musk’s $134 billion damages claim against OpenAI, suggesting the figure may be wildly overstated and ordering validation of expert testimony by late April — a major legal hurdle for Musk's case reported. The pushback narrows the damages fight to expert methodology and could reshape how courts value alleged tech-era breaches of mission and IP.
Why does Judge Doubts Musk Damages matter?
The trial [is scheduled to begin on April 27, 2026]courthousenews.com in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland and the court docket shows the proceeding is expected to run through late May.courthousenews.com Musk’s damages notice rests on analysis by financial economist C. Paul Wazzan, who [the press reports has been deposed nearly 100 times and testified at trial more than a dozen times]techcrunch.com. Wazzan’s [model calculates]techbriefly.com that OpenAI’s “wrongful gains” fall between $65.5 billion and $109.43 billion and Microsoft’s between $13.3 billion and $25.06 billion, premised on Musk’s roughly $38 million seed contribution and public estimates of OpenAI’s current enterprise value.techbriefly.com OpenAI and Microsoft filed a pretrial motion seeking to exclude Opinions 3–6 of Dr. Wazzan (a motion set for the March 3, 2026 hearing on the docket) and accuse the report of being “made up,” “unverifiable” and legally unprecedented in its attribution approach.cdn.arstechnica.net
