The legal battle between the co-founders of the world’s leading artificial intelligence startup has concluded in a courtroom defeat for the world's richest man. According to a report by the BBC, a California jury has unanimously sided with the leadership of OpenAI.
The court determined that Tesla and SpaceX chief Elon Musk waited too long to file his lawsuit, meaning the statute of limitations on all primary charges had already run out.
The core
Musk accused OpenAI CEO Sam Altman of breaching an initial agreement to keep the organization strictly non-profit. Early in the venture's history, Musk donated approximately $38 million to the project.
According to the plaintiff, Altman accepted the funds under false pretenses, later transitioning the startup into a commercial enterprise focused on maximizing profits while abandoning the core mission of developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
Jurors spent just about two hours deliberating before reaching their verdict. This followed a three-week trial during which the panel reviewed internal correspondence and heard testimony from key tech industry leaders, including Musk, Altman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.
Musk had accused Microsoft of aiding and abetting OpenAI in its improper corporate transition. However, following the rejection of the claims against OpenAI, the court automatically dismissed the secondary allegations against Microsoft.
Because the jury found that the statute of limitations had lapsed for Musk’s claims regarding breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, they were not required to evaluate whether Altman had deceived his former business partner on the merits of the case.
Outspoken reactions
A spokesperson for Microsoft stated that the facts and the timeline in the case had long been clear, adding that the corporation remains committed to its ongoing partnership with OpenAI.
Musk quickly fired back on his social media platform X, labeling the decision a "free license to loot charities" as long as the actions can be kept quiet for a few years. He also accused the presiding judge of being an activist who used the jury as a fig leaf, though that post was later deleted.
Conversely, OpenAI framed the verdict as a tremendous victory for the justice system. Company spokesman Sam Singer emphasized that the legal action was nothing more than an effort by Musk to slow down a direct competitor.
William Savitt, the attorney representing OpenAI, added that the billionaire's claims bore no relationship to reality, asserting that the jury ultimately found Musk's testimony regarding the company's origins to be untruthful.
Savitt pointed out that during the trial, Altman recalled a moment when Musk vied for long-term control of the entity, even suggesting it should eventually pass to his children.
An uphill battle for appeal
Musk's legal counsel, Marc Toberoff, declared that the courtroom war is not over, promising a swift appeal. He maintains that the jury's decision was based purely on a calendar technicality rather than the actual substance of the case.
However, independent legal experts remain highly skeptical of Musk's chances. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, explained that appellate courts are extremely unlikely to overturn fact-specific decisions delivered by a jury.
Appellate lawyer Raffi Melkonian echoed this sentiment on social media, noting that appealing a unanimous jury verdict is exceptionally difficult to win, meaning any further legal maneuvers will likely only drag out the final resolution for months without altering the outcome.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising or investment advice. Please do your own research before making any decisions.