A nine-member advisory jury began deliberating May 14 on the statute of limitations threshold in Musk v. OpenAI, with up to $150 billion in disgorgement at stake.
Closing arguments in *Musk v. OpenAI* concluded May 14 in Oakland, with a nine-member advisory jury set to begin deliberations the following Monday on a threshold statute of limitations question that will determine whether the case proceeds to a full remedies phase [1]. The jury's finding is advisory, meaning U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers retains final authority over the legal determination, but the verdict will carry significant weight as the court frames its ultimate ruling on Musk's claims against OpenAI and its leadership [1].
The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Musk filed suit against OpenAI, co-founder Sam Altman, and co-founder Greg Brockman, alleging that Altman made material misrepresentations about OpenAI's commitment to its founding nonprofit mission when soliciting Musk's early financial support [1]. Musk's counsel, led by Steven Molo, argued that Altman's promises regarding the company's public-benefit structure were false and induced Musk's participation [1]. OpenAI's defense team, which included William Savitt and Sarah Eddy, countered that Musk filed suit only after launching his competing artificial intelligence company xAI, and that Musk himself had considered a for-profit structure for OpenAI during the organization's early years [1].
The statute of limitations phase is threshold in nature. If the jury finds Musk's claims are time-barred, the litigation ends without reaching the merits. If Musk prevails on that question, the court was already preparing a separate remedies phase, in which the potential relief at issue includes disgorgement of as much as $150 billion tied to OpenAI's commercial valuation [1]. That figure reflects OpenAI's transformation from a nonprofit research lab into a capped-profit entity backed by Microsoft and other investors, the structural shift that sits at the center of Musk's theory of harm [1].
The outcome carries implications beyond the parties. A ruling that OpenAI's restructuring violated its charitable trust obligations could reshape how courts evaluate nonprofit-to-commercial conversions in the technology sector, where similar transitions are increasingly common. Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the *Epic v. Apple* antitrust trial, will issue findings after the advisory jury returns its deliberation results, with the remedies phase to follow if the court rules in Musk's favor [1].