jury dismisses – After three weeks of testimony, a jury ruled against Elon Musk in his OpenAI lawsuit, finding that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were not liable because the claims were filed after the statute of limitations had expired. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed, dis
By the time the jury returned its decision, the courtroom had already spent three weeks with testimony that, in the end, didn’t need a deep dive into motive or intent.
Musk lost. The jury ruled against him, finding that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were not liable in the case. The reason wasn’t that the jury weighed every allegation on its merits—it was the calendar. The jury found that the statute of limitations had already passed when Musk sued the two executives.
Musk’s lawsuit was filed in 2024. In it, he accused Altman and Brockman of “stealing a charity” following his departure from the AI lab in 2018. The jury in the case served only an “advisory” role, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the jury’s ruling.
In court, Rogers dismissed Musk’s claims of “breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment” as untimely, and she told Musk’s lawyer that she would dismiss an appeal “on the spot.” Musk could still appeal, but the judge’s message left little room for delay.
At the center of the dispute was OpenAI’s reorganization—when the company converted from a nonprofit to a public benefit corporation. Musk has said that move, along with Microsoft’s $13 billion investment in the firm, broke OpenAI’s original contractual agreements. A key question throughout the trial was when Musk became aware of OpenAI’s for-profit ambitions. because the case was tied to a three-year statute of limitations.
After the verdict, a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that the company welcomed the jury’s decision to dismiss the claims as untimely. The spokesperson added that Microsoft “remain[s] committed to our work with OpenAI to advance and scale AI for people and organizations around the world.”
Musk signaled he wasn’t finished. In a post on X following the verdict. he wrote that he was planning to file an appeal and argued that “the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case. just on a calendar technicality.” He added: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”.
The testimony that came before the timing fight was sharper and more personal than the final outcome. Musk’s lawyers tried to paint Altman as dishonest, even referencing Altman’s recent unflattering New Yorker profile. When asked if he thought he was an honest person. Altman said. “I believe so.” Steven Molo—the lead lawyer for the world’s richest man—pounced immediately. “You believe so?” Molo asked. Altman replied, “I will just amend my answer to yes.”.
Altman also repeatedly faced questions about statements from past OpenAI employees. including former CTO Mira Murati. who described Altman as someone who would say “one thing to one person and completely the opposite to another person.” When pressed. Altman claimed he had not seen their testimony. replying that “I have heard people say that.”.
The tone in court also diverged sharply between the sides. Altman often came across as restrained and careful with answers. Musk, by contrast, was combative. “Your questions are not simple. They are designed to trick me, essentially,” Musk told William Savitt, OpenAI’s lead counsel.
As the trial moved toward closing arguments, Musk’s presence became another tension point. Savitt told the jury, “Mr. Musk isn’t here today. My clients are,” and added, “Mr. Musk came to this court for exactly one witness: Elon Musk. Now he’s in parts unknown.” In this case. “parts unknown” meant by Trump’s side for his diplomatic trip to China.
Even before the trial began, Musk’s chances of getting the remedies he sought looked slim. He asked the court to undo OpenAI’s for-profit conversion and also to force the removal of Altman and Brockman from their positions at the top of the company.
There might have been a brief opening. early on. during OpenAI’s negotiations with the Attorneys General of California and Delaware. But it became clear the judge was hesitant to unwind the work of public officials. When Musk filed a request for a preliminary injunction to stop the conversion. Rogers said the request was “extraordinary and rarely granted.”.
By the end, the jury’s decision left the courtroom with a clean conclusion and a messy question for Musk: not whether he believes Altman and Brockman did what he alleged, but whether he sued in time.
Update, May 18, 2026, 5:11PM PT: Added an X post from Musk about the verdict.
Elon Musk OpenAI Sam Altman Greg Brockman statute of limitations Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Microsoft $13 billion charity breach unjust enrichment OpenAI public benefit corporation AI lawsuit
So basically Musk sued too late? lol.
I didn’t even know there was a time limit for that stuff. Sounds like the jury was like “wrong deadline” and that’s it? Altman and Brockman get off because paperwork, not because they were innocent.
Wait, didn’t Musk say they stole a charity? If it’s about statute of limitations then what about all the Microsoft money, like $13 billion, that’s the real issue. Seems weird to me to dismiss it when the reorg is literally connected to it. Also I’m confused how the jury’s decision was advisory, like what was even the point of three weeks.
This headline makes it sound like they dismissed his OpenAI claims but the article says it’s because of the calendar. That’s such a Musk thing, always picking a fight after everyone moved on. I bet he’ll appeal just to say he never lost on the facts, even though it’s “untimely” or whatever. Judges always do that “on the spot” thing, like ok sure but let the people decide then.