Elon Musk's lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI was dismissed as the jury determined that the claims were submitted past the deadline.

      A jury of nine in Oakland unanimously ruled that Elon Musk's lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI was filed too late, resulting in the trial being concluded on statute of limitations grounds without addressing the merits of the case. This advisory verdict, if accepted by the presiding judge, would remove a significant legal hurdle for OpenAI's plans to go public.

      Elon Musk has lost his legal battle against Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft. The jury's unanimous verdict on Sunday determined that Musk's claims were submitted after the statute of limitations had expired, thereby ending what was anticipated to be a pivotal corporate governance trial in AI history without delving into whether OpenAI’s executives had acted inappropriately.

      Although the verdict is advisory—meaning Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California will have the final say on liability—she had expressed prior to deliberation that she was likely to align with the jury's decision. Should she do so, Musk’s efforts to oust Altman from OpenAI, reverse the company’s $852 billion restructuring, and seek up to $134 billion in restitution to OpenAI’s nonprofit foundation would effectively be concluded.

      The jury's task was limited to determining whether Musk's lawsuit was filed within the legal timeframe, rather than assessing if Altman and Brockman had betrayed OpenAI's original mission. Musk left OpenAI's board in 2018 but did not initiate the lawsuit until February 2024, creating a six-year gap that his legal team found difficult to justify during the three-week trial. Musk claimed he only realized the full extent of OpenAI’s deviation from its nonprofit mission in 2022 when Microsoft was planning a $10 billion investment. In contrast, OpenAI's lawyers argued that the relevant events, such as the creation of a for-profit subsidiary in 2019 and Microsoft’s $1 billion investment that same year, were publicly known well before Musk filed his suit.

      The jury sided with OpenAI, determining that the alleged harms Musk presented occurred before the deadline for his claims, rendering the lawsuit untimely regardless of its substance. The unanimous agreement among jurors indicated that none accepted Musk's argument that the statute of limitations should start from his later realization of the purported misconduct.

      Both parties framed the trial as one that would shape AI governance for the coming decade. Musk’s lead attorney, Steven Molo, described Altman and Brockman as having “stolen a charity,” while OpenAI's lawyer, William Savitt, argued that Musk filed suit only after failing to gain control of OpenAI and launching his own competing AI company, xAI, in 2023.

      Had the case reached its substantive issues, the jury would have evaluated two civil claims: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Musk had donated around $44 million to OpenAI from 2015 to 2017 and contended that these contributions were misappropriated when the organization transitioned from a nonprofit research lab to a for-profit entity now valued at hundreds of billions. He sought Altman's removal from leadership, revocation of OpenAI’s restructuring into a public benefit corporation, and up to $134 billion in restitution from OpenAI and Microsoft.

      Musk testified for three days, asserting that the case would set a precedent for charitable donations in the U.S., renouncing any personal financial gain and requesting that damages be allocated to OpenAI's nonprofit arm. OpenAI's defense countered that Musk had advocated for a for-profit subsidiary as early as 2017, contingent on his control, and left the board when that demand was denied.

      The trial featured a range of prominent figures from Silicon Valley. Testimonies included Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, and Musk. One significant piece of evidence against OpenAI was a journal entry by Brockman from November 2017, in which he recognized that the company could not sincerely claim to uphold a nonprofit structure if it planned to become a benefit corporation shortly after. Judge Gonzalez Rogers had specifically referenced this journal entry in her ruling allowing the trial to progress.

      Sutskever's testimony complicated matters for both sides. He initially gathered evidence of what he termed Altman's deceptive behavior but later expressed regret about reinstating Altman. Altman, during cross-examination, admitted to having “told the occasional lie,” while five witnesses described him as untrustworthy.

      OpenAI also called Shivon Zilis, the mother of four of Musk’s children, whose testimony did not support Musk’s claims regarding the organization's foundational commitments. Notably, Musk was absent for the closing arguments on May 14, as he attended a delegation to Beijing with President Trump, a fact that OpenAI's attorneys highlighted before the jury.

      The statute of limitations verdict, if endorsed by Gonzalez Rogers, would eliminate a major legal hurdle for OpenAI at a crucial time. The company transitioned to a public benefit corporation