jury weighs – Closing arguments wrapped Thursday in Elon Musk’s lawsuit accusing OpenAI executives of misleading him into donating about $38 million and allegedly helping turn a nonprofit research lab into a corporate structure. A jury is set to deliberate next week, while
When closing arguments ended Thursday in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, the question for the jury sounded simple but carried massive stakes: whether Musk was duped into donating roughly $38 million to a nonprofit under false pretenses.
Musk’s attorneys framed the case as a betrayal tied to OpenAI’s transformation from a nonprofit research organization into a corporate powerhouse.. They argue that the shift came at least partly through dishonesty and power plays inside the company that Musk helped start. including former executives and board members.. The jury will deliberate next week. and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is scheduled to decide damages if the verdict favors Musk.
In that scenario. the court could order restitution that Musk’s team says may reach $150 billion. and—less likely but still possible—include sweeping changes to OpenAI’s leadership and governance structure.. Even if Musk loses. the evidence presented at trial could still give state regulators a reason to revisit agreements that enabled OpenAI’s initial restructuring.
The looming possibility of appeals also means the fight may not end with the verdict.
Jurors heard a parade of testimony aimed at discrediting both Musk and Sam Altman, but several revelations landed hardest—especially those centered on trust, control, and who got to steer what witnesses described as world-shaping technology.
Musk’s team pushed claims that Altman wasn’t honest with the people who depended on him
A central thrust of Musk’s case was that Altman couldn’t be trusted—portrayed as someone who would say different things to different people to protect his own agenda.
Former OpenAI employees and board members testified to support that theme.. Helen Toner. a former board member. said in a video deposition that Altman’s “pattern of behavior related to his honesty and candor” contributed directly to his temporary ouster as CEO in 2023.. Mira Murati. OpenAI’s former chief technology officer. testified that Altman had a tendency of “saying one thing to one person and completely the opposite to another person.”
Murati also described a specific moment involving model safety. She testified that Altman lied to her about a safety review required to vet a new AI model.
Altman’s conduct, as presented by Musk’s lawyers and echoed by multiple witnesses, became a key lens for the jury: if people at the top were not candid, then decisions about governance and the nonprofit mission—Musk’s lawyers argue—were made on unstable ground.
A diary by Greg Brockman became courtroom evidence of internal turmoil—and ambition
Among the most pointed and personal items introduced at trial was evidence tied to a diary kept by Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president.
Brockman’s notes. described in testimony as “stream of consciousness. ” covered his doubts about the moral cost of turning OpenAI into a for-profit enterprise.. In one 2017 entry. he wrote that he couldn’t “see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight. ” and that it would be “wrong to steal the nonprofit from him. ” referring to Musk. who co-founded OpenAI and provided most of its start-up funding.
But the diary did not stay only in moral questioning. Brockman also wrote about personal stakes, including ambition. He wrote that it would be “nice to be making the billions.” He later received a stake in OpenAI now estimated to be worth about $30 billion.
Musk’s lawyers leaned on the diary’s mix of warning and aspiration to portray internal deliberations as less about principle than about negotiating power.
Musk’s conduct inside early OpenAI talks, including threats and control disputes
Testimony also portrayed Musk as difficult to collaborate with, especially during early efforts that would shape OpenAI’s future.. Witnesses described Musk building a bot in 2017 capable of beating top professional players at the strategic multiplayer game Dota 2. described in the trial as a major milestone for the budding lab.
Brockman testified that Musk emailed him, calling it “the triggering event,” and that Musk told Brockman it was time to make the next step for OpenAI.
Brockman also testified that Musk gave him and cofounder Ilya Sutskever Tesla Model 3 cars and then summoned them to Musk’s self-described “haunted mansion” for discussions about a possible OpenAI for-profit arm. Brockman said whiskey was served by Musk’s then-girlfriend, Amber Heard.
In one account that stood out for its intensity. Brockman testified that Musk became so irate during control talks that he feared violence.. Brockman said Musk’s anger grew when guests insisted on shared control rather than ceding absolute control to Musk. and that he “actually thought he was going to hit me. physically attack me.”
Altman’s testimony added that Musk later repeatedly pitched having Tesla absorb OpenAI.
Brockman’s testimony also described a “particularly hair-raising moment” in which Musk mused that OpenAI should be passed on to his children.
Even after Musk left OpenAI in 2018 to build his own competitor. the trial record still showed sharp internal clashes about the pace and direction of artificial general intelligence.. Brockman testified about another tense verbal tussle. this time with Josh Achiam—now OpenAI’s chief futurist—during an all-hands meeting.. Achiam testified that Musk “snapped” and called him “a jackass.”
For Achiam’s part, two OpenAI employees—including Dario Amodei, who later departed to form Anthropic—awarded him a small golden statue of a donkey’s rear end. The statue was inscribed with the message, “Never stop being a jackass for safety.”
The lawsuit’s wider target: whether Microsoft helped push OpenAI away from its nonprofit mission
While Musk’s case centered heavily on interpersonal conflicts, the lawsuit also named Microsoft, accusing it of aiding and abetting OpenAI’s abandonment of its nonprofit mission.
Microsoft. described in testimony as arriving early as OpenAI’s first major corporate investor in 2019. also became a vehicle for OpenAI to keep competing as the AI race accelerated.. The trial included testimony tying Microsoft’s push to a fear of being left behind—framed as a response to Google’s dominance and Google cofounders’ influence.
One executive account included a message from Satya Nadella, who testified he didn’t want Microsoft to become “IBM.” Nadella said that company’s decline served as a warning, and that in the AI context it was becoming “even more core and important that we had real agency at every layer of the stack.”
That meant, according to testimony, Microsoft moved aggressively into every corner of OpenAI’s operations.
Microsoft also played a role in bringing Altman back after the failed board coup in 2023. Nadella described that episode as “amateur city, as far as I was concerned.”
The record also included a text thread in which Altman asked Microsoft executives to vet members of OpenAI’s reconstituted board—now described as controlling both the for-profit entity and the original nonprofit.
By this summer, one OpenAI executive testified that Microsoft will have invested over $100 billion in OpenAI. The company was also awarded a 27 percent stake in OpenAI last fall.
A fight over who should control AI—framed as protection against catastrophic risk
Beyond the personal feuds, the trial repeatedly returned to an argument about trust and stewardship over technology that witnesses agreed could be consequential on a global scale.
Musk, Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft executives each pointed to “boogeymen” in testimony—other actors they argued were too corruptible or too driven by improper motives to be trusted with control of artificial general intelligence.
Musk’s attorneys emphasized that Musk saw himself differently: portraying him as selfless, transparent, and motivated by a desire to avoid the worst-case outcomes.
Musk testified about existential risks, telling the jury, “We don’t want to have a Terminator outcome.” Judge Gonzalez Rogers at times tried to steer the trial away from discussions of AI’s existential risks, though she did not always succeed.
Musk also told the court that if someone untrustworthy is in charge of AI, “that’s a very big danger for the whole world.”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers challenged Musk’s position in a way that sharpened the jury’s tension between principle and credibility.. She told Musk’s lawyer: “It is ironic that your client. despite these risks. is creating a company that is in the exact space.” She added. “I suspect there are plenty of people who wouldn’t like to put the future of humanity in Mr.. Musk’s hands.”
As the trial record built toward the jury’s decision next week, the courtroom conflict showed no clear resolution—only competing stories about who was deceiving whom, who wanted control, and who believed they were acting in the public interest.
Closing arguments set the timetable, but the consequences could extend far beyond the verdict
With closing arguments wrapped Thursday. jurors are now set to decide whether Musk was duped into donating about $38 million to OpenAI under false pretenses.. If they find in Musk’s favor. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers would determine damages. potentially leading to $150 billion in restitution and. while unlikely. changes to OpenAI’s leadership and governance structure.
Even if Musk does not win. the evidence may still matter to regulators and the broader corporate and nonprofit arrangements at the center of the dispute.. And regardless of the outcome. lawyers have indicated that either side may appeal—leaving open the possibility that the fight will continue long after next week’s deliberations end.
Elon Musk lawsuit OpenAI Sam Altman Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers jury deliberations nonprofit restructuring Microsoft Greg Brockman diary damages restitution AI governance