A nine-member advisory jury in Oakland unanimously found on May 18, 2026, that Elon Musk's claims against OpenAI, Inc., CEO Sam Altman, co-founder Greg Brockman, and Microsoft Corporation were barred by the statute of limitations, reaching that finding in under two hours of deliberation [1][2]. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the Northern District of California case, accepted the advisory jury's findings and dismissed all of Musk's claims as untimely [3][4]. The case, docketed as No. 4:24-cv-04722, had survived earlier dismissal attempts and proceeded to a three-week bench trial in which the advisory jury served a consultative role on the limitations question [1][3].
Musk filed suit alleging that OpenAI and its leadership betrayed the company's founding charitable mission when they converted the organization from a nonprofit structure to a for-profit enterprise, theories that traveled under claims of breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment, and, as against Microsoft, aiding and abetting breach of charitable trust [3][4]. At trial, plaintiff's counsel Marc Toberoff of Toberoff & Associates and Steven Molo of MoloLamken LLP pressed the argument that OpenAI's structural conversion unlawfully diverted assets held in charitable trust [1]. Defense counsel William Savitt of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz anchored the defense on the limitations bar, and the jury never reached the merits of the charitable-trust claims [2][4].
Musk had sought up to $150 billion in disgorgement from OpenAI and Microsoft, but the limitations finding foreclosed any damages award entirely [1][3]. Because Judge Gonzalez Rogers adopted the advisory verdict and dismissed all claims, no damages were assessed against any defendant.
Post-trial options for Musk include a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for new trial, or a direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit. No immediate post-trial filings were reported in the source record as of the verdict date [2][4]. The decision leaves OpenAI's pending for-profit restructuring and any prospective public offering free of this litigation's cloud, though the broader regulatory and legal landscape around nonprofit-to-for-profit conversions in the AI sector remains unsettled [1][3].