Elon Musk loses OpenAI suit

Elon Musk’s courtroom fight with OpenAI ended, for now, on May 18 in Oakland, California. A federal jury found that Musk waited too long to sue OpenAI and Chief Executive Sam Altman over claims the company abandoned its original nonprofit mission, and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted that finding and dismissed the case. (abcnews.com) Musk said afterward that he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, arguing on X that the decision turned on timing rather than the merits. (usnews.com) Google opened a separate front in Big Tech litigation days later. On May 22, Alphabet’s Google formally appealed the U.S. ruling that found it illegally maintained monopolies in online search and related advertising, defending its long-running default-search agreement with Apple’s Safari browser as lawful competition. (cnbc.com) The two cases involve different facts and different courts, but both now sit in appeals channels that will shape how judges, not just regulators and executives, handle disputes over AI and search. ### Why did Musk lose without a ruling on whether OpenAI broke its promises? A nine-person jury found that Musk’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. (abcnews.com) That meant the case ended on timing grounds, not on a jury finding about whether OpenAI had actually violated any founding agreement or public-benefit commitment. Musk sued in 2024, accusing Altman, OpenAI and others of betraying a plan to run the artificial-intelligence venture as a charitable nonprofit. CNBC reported that Musk said the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality,” and that he would appeal. (msn.com) ### What did the OpenAI trial actually show? The Associated Press reported that the trial made clear Musk and Altman agreed on one central point: building advanced artificial intelligence requires enormous resources and large amounts of money. That point surfaced repeatedly as the case examined OpenAI’s evolution from its original structure toward a more commercial model. (abcnews.com) OpenAI argued during the case that the dispute had become part business rivalry, part governance fight over how frontier AI should be financed. The verdict removed the immediate threat of a damages award that some reports described as reaching $150 billion, but it did not settle the broader argument over how AI labs balance public-interest claims with investor and capital demands. (cnbc.com) That broader framing is an inference from the issues described in trial coverage. ### What is Google appealing in the search case? Google’s appeal targets the 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that found the company maintained illegal monopolies in online search and related advertising. (apnews.com) In the appeal, Google argues that the district court wrongly treated its agreements with browser and device makers as unlawful exclusion rather than competition on the merits. The Apple arrangement is central because it is large and visible. Multiple reports on the filing said Google defended its roughly $20 billion Safari search deal by arguing Apple chose Google because it offered the best product and economics, not because rivals were shut out. (forbes.com) ### Why are Apple and Safari so important to the Google case? Apple’s Safari browser is one of the most valuable default positions in consumer search. The government’s monopoly case focused in part on Google’s payments to Apple and other partners to secure default placement, while Google says those payments reflect legal competition for distribution. (msn.com) Reuters, as reflected in syndications of its report, said Google’s appeal is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If Google loses there, the next possible step would be a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. (9to5mac.com) ### What happens next in both cases? The Ninth Circuit is the next stop for Musk if he follows through on his stated appeal of the OpenAI verdict. The dismissal entered after the May 18 jury finding leaves the appellate court to review whether the lower court properly treated his claims as untimely. (msn.com) The D.C. Circuit will handle Google’s challenge to Judge Mehta’s monopoly ruling. That appeal does not by itself erase the lower-court decision, and the litigation over search remedies and Google’s distribution deals with Apple will continue as the appellate process moves forward. (abcnews.com) (msn.com)