The federal trial in Oakland, California, pitting Elon Musk against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman has entered its final phase, with closing arguments completed on 15 May 2026. Musk’s attorney, Stephen Molo, told the nine‑person jury that Altman cannot be trusted, citing testimony from multiple witnesses including Musk, former OpenAI board members, and former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. Musk claims he was persuaded to invest 38 millionin Open AI as a non‑profit developing safe artificial intelligence for humanity’s benefit.
Healleges that without his consent, Open AI tied its non‑profit structure to a for‑profit business and raisedtensof billions from Microsoft and other investors. Musk is seeking approximately 150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the money to go to OpenAI’s non‑profit arm. He also demands the removal of Sam Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman from their positions.
The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations on Monday, 18 May 2026. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will then discuss potential remedies if Musk wins.

What Exactly Is Musk Accusing OpenAI and Altman Of?

Musk’s lawsuit, filed in August 2024, rests on two core legal claims: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. According to Musk’s testimony, in 2015 he co‑founded OpenAI as a non‑profit research laboratory with a written pledge to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity, not for private profit. He says Altman and the other founders repeatedly assured him that OpenAI would never become a commercial enterprise. Musk claims he relied on these assurances when he personally contributed $38 million – a significant portion of OpenAI’s early funding – and when he helped recruit top researchers away from Google and other tech giants.

The problem, according to the complaint, began around 2017. Musk alleges that Altman and Greg Brockman secretly began planning a for‑profit restructuring without informing him.
By 2019, OpenAI had created a capped‑profit subsidiary and accepted a 1 billion investment from Microsoft. Since then,Microsoft has invested an estimated 13 billion in OpenAI, and the company has grown into a commercial juggernaut with a valuation exceeding $80 billion. Musk argues that this transformation directly violates the non‑profit mission he funded. He also points to OpenAI’s licensing of its technology exclusively to Microsoft as evidence that the company is no longer “open” or working for “all of humanity”.

Musk’s lawyer, Stephen Molo, emphasised during closing arguments that multiple witnesses – including former board members and Ilya Sutskever – described Altman as someone who misled those around him. “Sam Altman is not a credible witness,” Molo told the jury. “He told Elon one thing and did another. That is a violation of trust, plain and simple.”

How Does OpenAI’s Defense Counter These Claims?

OpenAI’s legal team argues that Musk is rewriting history. Attorney Sarah Eddy stated that as early as 2017, all founders – including Musk – understood that OpenAI could not achieve its research goals as a pure non‑profit. The cost of training cutting‑edge AI models had already begun to skyrocket, and philanthropic donations were insufficient. According to Eddy, Musk himself participated in discussions about creating a for‑profit entity. The dispute, she argued, was never about principle – it was about control.

OpenAI’s version of events is that Musk wanted to turn OpenAI into a commercial company that he would personally control, possibly by merging it with Tesla. The other founders refused to hand over the development of artificial general intelligence to a single individual. Musk then left OpenAI’s board in 2018 and later started his own competing AI company, xAI, which is fully for‑profit and has raised billions from investors including Tesla shareholders.
William Savitt, another attorney for OpenAI, accused Musk of “selective amnesia”. He reminded the jury that Musk claims not to have read a brief 2018 document discussing external investment. “He is a billionaire who reads everything that touches his interests,” Savitt said. “To believe him now, you would have to believe he was willfully blind.”

OpenAI also argues that Musk waited far too long to sue. The alleged breaches occurred between 2017 and 2019. Musk filed his lawsuit only in 2024 – after OpenAI’s commercial success became undeniable and after Musk had launched a competing business. The defence contends that the lawsuit is not about charity law but about business rivalry and personal animosity.

What Role Does Microsoft Play in the Lawsuit?

Microsoft is named as a co‑defendant. Musk’s team argues that Microsoft knowingly participated in the breach of trust by funnelling billions into OpenAI while extracting exclusive licensing rights to its technology. The complaint seeks to hold Microsoft jointly liable for damages.

Microsoft’s attorney, Russell Cohen, pushed back forcefully. He told the jury that Microsoft was never a party to any trust agreement between Musk and OpenAI. Microsoft only invested after OpenAI had already adopted its for‑profit structure. “Microsoft was a responsible partner,” Cohen said. “We did not cause any breach. We were not involved in the founding promises. We simply invested in a legal entity that existed.”
Cohen also noted that Microsoft has no control over OpenAI’s non‑profit board, which remains independent. The investment was structured as a typical venture deal, not as a conspiracy to defraud Elon Musk. If the jury finds any violation, Cohen argued, the liability should fall solely on OpenAI’s founders, not on Microsoft.

What Does Musk Want – And What Would Happen If He Wins?

Musk’s demand is enormous: approximately $150 billion in damages. The money would not go to Musk personally. Instead, he asks that the entire sum be paid to OpenAI’s original non‑profit entity – the one he claims was betrayed. In practical terms, that would mean transferring tens of billions from Microsoft and OpenAI’s for‑profit arm to the non‑profit parent. Additionally, Musk seeks the removal of Sam Altman and Greg Brockman as officers and directors of OpenAI. He wants them barred from any leadership role in the organisation.

If the jury rules in Musk’s favour, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will hold a separate hearing on remedies. She could order a restructuring of OpenAI, force divestment of certain assets, or impose a massive financial penalty. The judge has already indicated that she sees the case as a dispute over contract‑like promises rather than pure charity law, which could limit the scope of relief.
If Musk loses, no penalties will be imposed. OpenAI and Microsoft will continue operating as before, and Musk will have to pay his own legal costs – already estimated in the tens of millions. The verdict will also set a precedent for how courts treat non‑profit pledges in the fast‑moving AI industry.

The core tension here is between the romantic ideal of open‑source research and the brute economics of frontier AI. Musk was right that the original mission was noble – but he also understood by 2017 that training GPT‑4 class models would cost hundreds of millions.
The jury faces a question without a clean legal answer: does a non‑profit pledge made in 2015 survive when the cost of the mission grows 100‑fold?
In practice, most charitable trusts include clauses allowing for changed circumstances. OpenAI will argue that circumstances changed. Musk will argue that Altman changed them intentionally. The verdict may turn on whether jurors believe Altman concealed his plans or simply adapted to reality.

Regional and Industry Implications of the Verdict

The case is being watched closely in Silicon Valley, Washington, and Brussels. For non‑profit and for‑profit hybrid structures in AI, the outcome could reshape how companies are governed. If Musk wins, every non‑profit research lab that later commercialises its technology could face donor lawsuits. This would chill investment in open‑source AI research. If OpenAI wins, the message is that founders can pivot from non‑profit to for‑profit as long as they follow corporate formalities – regardless of early promises.

In the United States, the case has already prompted the Federal Trade Commission to request documents from several AI non‑profits, including the Allen Institute for AI and the Partnership on AI. In the European Union, regulators are watching for potential competition implications if Microsoft’s relationship with OpenAI is deemed too tight. A Musk victory could force Microsoft to renegotiate its agreements, potentially opening OpenAI’s technology to other cloud providers.
For the broader tech industry, the trial has become a proxy for the debate over AI safety versus AI acceleration. Musk positions himself as the guardian of cautious, human‑centred AI. Altman presents himself as the pragmatic builder who had to compromise to stay competitive. The jury of nine ordinary citizens – not AI experts – must now decide which story is more credible.

The Musk v. OpenAI trial is no longer about documents or board minutes. It is about trust, timing, and whether a billionaire can force a company to honour promises made a decade ago in a different technological era. Musk demands $150 billion and Altman’s head. OpenAI says Musk is a sore loser who wanted control all along.
The jury begins deliberations on 18 May 2026. Whatever the verdict, the case will echo through the AI industry for years – setting boundaries between mission, money, and the personal ambitions of the men building the most powerful technology on Earth.

By Jake Sullivan
May 18, 2026

Join us. Our Telegram: @forexturnkey
All to the point, no ads. A channel that doesn't tire you out, but pumps you up.