An Oakland jury found Musk's suit against OpenAI untimely after three weeks of trial, but the presiding federal judge must still issue her own independent ruling.
An advisory jury in Oakland, California, found May 19 that Elon Musk waited too long to sue OpenAI and its president Sam Altman, dismissing his claims on statute-of-limitations grounds after less than two hours of deliberations [1]. The nine-person panel returned its finding following three weeks of testimony that included Musk's own three-day appearance on the stand [1]. The verdict does not end the case: U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding in the Northern District of California, is not bound by the jury's advisory finding and must still issue her own ruling [1].
The trial centered on Musk's allegation that OpenAI and Altman betrayed the charitable mission under which the company was founded, pivoting from a nonprofit structure toward a for-profit model without honoring commitments Musk says were made to early donors, including himself [2]. Testimony drew on internal documents and journal entries from OpenAI president Greg Brockman, in which Brockman wrote that he was, in substance, open to taking the nonprofit away from Musk, language that Musk's counsel characterized as damaging admissions [2]. Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella also testified during the proceedings, underscoring the breadth of commercial relationships at issue [2]. The case was filed in federal court, with jurisdiction grounded in claims spanning breach of charitable trust, unfair competition, and related theories [3].
The swift limitations finding carries immediate strategic weight. OpenAI is pursuing a corporate restructuring that values the company at approximately $300 billion in recent financing rounds, and the company's longer-term trajectory includes a potential public offering at a valuation analysts have placed as high as $852 billion [1]. A definitive ruling in OpenAI's favor, whether from the jury's advisory verdict or Judge Gonzalez Rogers's independent decision, removes a significant litigation cloud over that restructuring. Musk's competing AI venture, xAI, stands to benefit competitively if OpenAI's restructuring is delayed or disrupted by continued litigation [2].
The procedural posture leaves several outcomes live. Judge Gonzalez Rogers may adopt, modify, or reject the jury's limitations finding in her own written ruling [1]. If she rules against Musk on the same grounds, Musk retains the option to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which could extend the litigation well into OpenAI's anticipated restructuring timeline [1]. Parallel proceedings and regulatory scrutiny of OpenAI's nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion, including review by the California and Delaware attorneys general, remain ongoing and are not resolved by this verdict [3].
—