Federal jury rejects Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI

A federal jury in Oakland, California, on May 18 rejected Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, ending his effort to hold the company liable for abandoning its original nonprofit mission. The nine-member jury found Musk had waited too long to bring the case, delivering a unanimous advisory verdict after less than two hours of deliberation. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the finding and dismissed the claims against OpenAI, Chief Executive Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman and Microsoft, according to court coverage by Reuters, the Associated Press and other outlets. ### Why did the jury throw out Musk’s case? Elon Musk’s case turned on timing as much as substance. Jurors concluded his claims were barred by California’s statute of limitations because he sued too late over conduct he said violated OpenAI’s founding commitments. MIT Technology Review reported the verdict found Musk had sued too late, while Reuters and AP said the jury concluded he had delayed too long to bring the claims. (money.usnews.com) The lawsuit had accused OpenAI and its leaders of betraying a shared plan to keep the organization focused on benefiting humanity rather than private gain. Reuters reported that Musk argued OpenAI strayed from its original mission as it moved toward a for-profit structure and closer ties with Microsoft. ### What was Musk trying to prove about OpenAI? (technologyreview.com) Musk, an OpenAI co-founder who later left the company, had sought to show that Altman and others broke promises made in the startup’s early years. CNBC reported Musk sued Altman and OpenAI in 2024, alleging they violated a promise to keep the AI company a nonprofit. AP similarly said Musk accused the company of betraying a shared vision that it remain a nonprofit dedicated to developing AI for humanity’s benefit. (msn.com) Microsoft was also named in the case because of its partnership with OpenAI. GeekWire reported the jury found OpenAI, Altman and Microsoft not liable on all claims after deciding Musk had waited too long to sue. ### Why did Sam Altman’s courtroom win come with damage? Sam Altman prevailed in court, but Reuters reported the trial featured repeated testimony from former colleagues who called him a liar under oath. (cnbc.com) Reuters said that testimony could leave lasting scars on Altman’s reputation even after the legal victory. (geekwire.com) That reputational issue surfaced because the trial aired internal disputes over how OpenAI was governed, how its mission changed and how its leaders described those changes. MIT Technology Review said the verdict closed the case on procedural grounds rather than resolving all of the underlying arguments about OpenAI’s evolution. That left the public record filled with testimony about trust, incentives and leadership conduct. (money.usnews.com) ### How fast did the verdict come back? The jury moved quickly. Reuters, CNBC, CBS News and GeekWire each reported that the panel deliberated for less than two hours before returning its unanimous verdict. Several reports identified the jury as nine members. The speed of the decision underscored how strongly the jurors accepted the limitations defense. (technologyreview.com) AP and CBS said the dismissal rested on the conclusion that Musk had failed to file within the applicable deadline. ### What happens next for Musk, OpenAI and Microsoft? Elon Musk said after the verdict that he would appeal. CNBC reported Musk described the outcome as a “technicality,” while Business Insider reported he said there was “no question” Altman and Brockman had enriched themselves. (msn.com) OpenAI, meanwhile, removed a major legal obstacle as it continues operating with Microsoft as a key partner. (apnews.com) Reuters said the trial may still leave questions for Altman’s standing because of the testimony aired in court, and Mercury News said the company remains on track for what could be a future public offering. The next concrete step is an appeal from Musk, while OpenAI and its executives continue to face scrutiny over governance and past representations. (cnbc.com) (money.usnews.com)