![\"TOPSHOT-US-TECHNOLOGY-AI-JUSTICE-TRIAL\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/1778926994_666_0x0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
TOPSHOT – Inflatable punching bags with added pictures of Elon Musk and Sam Altman are seen outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and US Courthouse as the Musk v. Altman trial begins in Oakland, California, on April 27, 2026. While the lawsuit filed by Musk is part of a feud between him and OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, it spotlights a debate whether AI should ultimately benefit the privileged few or society as a whole. (Photo by Karl Mondon \/ AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n
AFP via Getty Images<\/p>\n
The jury in the closely watched Elon Musk et al. v. Sam Altman et al. will begin deliberations on Monday at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California. <\/p>\n
What they are weighing, and what Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide, is whether Sam Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman betrayed the nonprofit mission of the company they co-founded with Musk in 2015, enriching themselves and Microsoft in the process. The verdict is advisory \u2014 the judge is the one with the final say.<\/p>\n
Up to $150 billion in damages is on the table to be redirected to OpenAI\u2019s nonprofit foundation, as well as the forced unwinding of OpenAI\u2019s 2025 for-profit restructuring and the removal of both Altman and Brockman from their leadership roles \u2014 any of which could derail what is expected to be one of the largest IPOs in tech history, with OpenAI eyeing a valuation approaching $1 trillion.<\/p>\n
Here is what happened and what it revealed.<\/p>\n
A brief backstory <\/p>\n
Musk co-founded OpenAI alongside Altman, Brockman and others in 2015 as a nonprofit focused on developing AI for humanity\u2019s benefit. He donated approximately $38 million to the company<\/a>, fell out with the other founders over control and left the board in February 2018.<\/p>\n (Now, the world\u2019s richest man has accused Altman and another OpenAI co-founder of trying to \u201csteal a charity.\u201d)<\/p>\n OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary shortly after his departure, raised billions from Microsoft and others, and in October 2025 completed a full restructuring into a public benefit corporation \u2014 still overseen by the nonprofit foundation but no longer a capped-profit entity. The company is valued at $852 billion<\/a>.<\/p>\n Musk filed suit<\/a> in 2024, alleging breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. In January this year, Musk\u2019s lawyers said their client was entitled to up to $134 billion in damages \u2014 and more recently his team has argued<\/a> any \u201cill-gotten gains\u201d should be returned to the nonprofit. <\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s position<\/a> is that Musk is \u201cmotivated by jealousy, regret for walking away from OpenAI and a desire to derail a competing AI company.\u201d <\/p>\n Week one: Musk on the stand<\/p>\n Musk was the first witness called \u2014 which is rather unusual for a plaintiff \u2014 and spent the bulk of the opening week testifying, often combatively. <\/p>\n He described his $38 million as funding a charity for humanity\u2019s benefit, accused Altman and Brockman of \u201cstealing\u201d it, and told jurors the consequences of the case \u201cgo far beyond me.\u201d He predicted AI will surpass human intelligence \u201cas soon as next year\u201d and said he\u2019d tried to warn President Obama of the risks years ago, to little effect.<\/p>\n The cross-examination was also frequently heated. Musk accused<\/a> OpenAI\u2019s attorney William Savitt \u2014 who also represented Twitter during its legal battle with Musk \u2014 of asking misleading questions \u201cdesigned to trick\u201d him and the jury. Judge Gonzalez Rogers intervened multiple times. Musk acknowledged he never fulfilled his $1 billion pledge to OpenAI, donating roughly $38 million<\/a> in total. <\/p>\n The judge also seemed to reject Musk\u2019s attempts to situate the trial around AI\u2019s existential risks to humanity, telling his lawyers, \u201cIt\u2019s ironic your client, despite these risks, is creating a company in the exact same space.\u201d <\/p>\n The night before testimony began, Musk had reached out to Brockman in what began as a settlement feeler. When Brockman suggested both sides drop their claims, the conversation culminated in Musk reportedly replying<\/a>, \u201cBy the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.\u201d (Sound familiar from the Twitter takeover saga?) The exchange was ruled inadmissible. <\/p>\n Week two: Paper trailBrockman\u2019s journals<\/p>\n OpenAI president Greg Brockman kept a personal diary, and his legal team had to produce it. Read aloud in federal court, the entries showed Brockman wondering in 2017 whether OpenAI really wanted to be \u201cthe people who bring Elon to control of the AGI\u201d while also noting<\/a> of Musk: \u201che is [expletive] famous. he\u2019s got the resources. and he is smart.\u201d A separate entry from the same year asked: \u201cFinancially, what will take me to $1B?\u201d His stake in OpenAI is now worth approximately $30 billion. Musk\u2019s attorney pressed him on the discrepancy between mission rhetoric and personal enrichment. Brockman described the entries as expressions of frustration, never intended for public view.<\/p>\n Mira Murati\u2019s texts<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati<\/a> testified about safety concerns she had with Altman\u2019s decision-making, including a claim that Altman said GPT-4 Turbo did not need deployment-safety-board review. Her private texts with Altman during the chaotic week of his 2023 firing became one of the trial\u2019s viral moments (and there were so many) \u2014 her message describing the situation as \u201cdirectionally very bad\u201d and saying Altman would be replaced by \u201crando Twitch guy\u201d (Emmett Shear, Twitch’s then-CEO, who briefly held the OpenAI CEO role) circulated widely and inspired AI-generated songs. <\/p>\n Shivon Zilis <\/p>\n The testimony<\/a> of Shivon Zilis \u2014 senior Musk adviser, former OpenAI board member and mother of four of his children \u2014 showed how thoroughly personal and professional relationships overlapped inside early OpenAI. After Musk left the board in 2018, Zilis apparently continued acting as a conduit, texting him to ask whether she should \u201cstay close and friendly with OpenAI to keep info flowing or begin to disassociate.\u201d Musk told her to stay close. OpenAI\u2019s lawyers argued that while serving on the board, Zilis knew Musk was planning a rival AI company before it became public knowledge. Zilis testified that her relationship with Musk did not affect her conduct as a board member. <\/p>\n Week three: Altman, Nadella & the donkey trophySatya Nadella <\/p>\n Microsoft\u2019s CEO arrived for Monday morning testimony last week having reportedly<\/a> been seen pacing in the courthouse hallways beforehand. He described Microsoft\u2019s early investment in OpenAI as a genuine financial risk nobody else was willing to take, denied ever demanding Altman\u2019s reinstatement after the 2023 board crisis and characterised the board\u2019s handling of that episode without mincing words. \u201cIt was sort of amateur city as far as I\u2019m concerned.\u201d On Musk\u2019s concerns: \u201cWe have each other\u2019s phone numbers. He never called.\u201d <\/p>\n Internal Microsoft emails from 2018<\/a> presented in court complicated the warm partnership narrative. Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott wrote of OpenAI at the time: \u201cI\u2019m highly skeptical of an imminent breakthrough in AGI. They\u2019re treating us like a bucket of undifferentiated GPUs.\u201d Separately, Nadella had warned in a 2022 email that he didn\u2019t \u201cwant to be IBM\u201d to OpenAI\u2019s Microsoft \u2014 referencing the deal that allowed Microsoft to dominate the PC era at IBM’s expense. A video deposition from a Microsoft executive revealed the company had recognised approximately $9.5 billion in revenue from the OpenAI partnership as of March 2025.<\/p>\n Ilya Sutskever<\/p>\n The OpenAI co-founder and former chief scientist (who voted to fire Altman in 2023, describing it as a \u201cHail Mary\u201d driven by genuine safety concerns) made one of the sharpest one-liners of the trial. Brass tacks, Musk\u2019s argument was: \u201cIt\u2019s not OK to steal a charity.\u201d Sutskever\u2019s counter<\/a>: \u201cThe mission of OpenAI is larger than the structure.\u201d He testified he had turned down a $6 million annual salary at Google to join OpenAI; his current stake is estimated at around $7 billion. <\/p>\n The donkey trophy<\/p>\n In one of the most riveting details that seems nothing short of legal drama material, OpenAI brought a golden trophy of a donkey\u2019s rear end into evidence \u2014 awarded to an employee Musk once called a \u201cjackass<\/a>\u201d for pushing back on his plans to accelerate toward AGI. OpenAI presented it as evidence of its commitment to safety over speed.<\/p>\n Sam Altman on the stand & 2023 \u201cfog of war\u201d <\/p>\n Last Tuesday\u2019s testimony was a huge focus in the defence case. Altman\u2019s position<\/a>, delivered over roughly four hours, was, \u201cHe didn\u2019t steal a charity, but Elon Musk abandoned one.\u201d Altman testified that Musk\u2019s departure from the board in 2018 was, frankly, a morale boost for employees who disliked his \u201chardcore\u201d approach and that Musk had made clear he would only work on companies he fully controlled. \u201cI was extremely uncomfortable with it,\u201d Altman said of Musk’s push for majority control. <\/p>\n On Musk\u2019s accusation that he stole the charity, Altman said: \u201cMr. Musk did try to kill it.\u201d He alleged Musk had launched a competitor, attempted to poach OpenAI talent, and engaged in \u201cbusiness interference.\u201d<\/p>\n On his 2023 ouster, he said, \u201cI was in this fog of war. I didn\u2019t know what was going on… everything I had worked so hard to build was going to get destroyed.\u201d He described his decision to return as being \u201cwilling to run back into a burning building to try to save it.\u201d <\/p>\n Musk\u2019s attorney Steven Molo\u2019s cross-examination zeroed in on Altman\u2019s credibility. <\/p>\n Molo asked about concerns raised by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei (who allegedly accused Altman of misrepresenting investment terms), former board members who fired him for being \u201cnot consistently candid\u201d and a New Yorker profile titled \u201cSam Altman May Control Our Future \u2014 Can He Be Trusted?\u201d<\/a> When asked if he always told the truth, Altman replied: \u201cI\u2019m sure there are some times in my life when I did not.\u201d When asked if he\u2019d been called a liar by business associates, he said, \u201cI have heard people say that.\u201d <\/p>\n Altman also testified that Amazon, Nvidia and SoftBank have each invested more in OpenAI than Microsoft \u2014 a noteworthy point given that Microsoft is named as a defendant but those three companies are not.<\/p>\n Closing arguments<\/p>\n In his closing, Musk\u2019s lead attorney Molo focused on Altman\u2019s credibility, asking jurors to imagine a bridge built on \u201cAltman\u2019s version of the truth\u201d and whether they\u2019d walk across it. <\/p>\n Molo reiterated that OpenAI failed to open-source its technology and prioritise safety, and that insiders and investors, including Altman, Brockman and Microsoft, enriched themselves at the expense of the charitable mission. <\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s Sarah Eddy told the jury, \u201cHe never cared about the nonprofit structure. What he cared about was winning.\u201d She and co-counsel William Savitt argued Altman and Brockman never made commitments to Musk about corporate structure, that his donations were spent properly and that the lawsuit arrived only after Musk launched his competing AI startup. Altman\u2019s lawyers noted the for-profit arm has generated nearly $200 billion<\/a> in equity value that supports the nonprofit foundation and that providing ChatGPT for free itself advances the mission of sharing AI\u2019s benefits with the world. <\/p>\n One striking sidebar: Musk, who concluded his testimony two weeks ago and has not returned to court since, was spotted<\/a> in China accompanying President Trump on Wednesday \u2014 the morning before closing arguments. He remains technically subject to recall as a witness. OpenAI\u2019s attorney William Savitt expressed surprise, saying it was unexpected to see \u201cthe witness, subject to recall, in the case he is plaintiff…decide to get on Air Force One and go to China.\u201d Musk\u2019s attorney Marc Toberoff called it a non-issue, noting there was no court order barring travel. <\/p>\n What happens now?<\/p>\n The nine-person jury \u2014 six women and three men \u2014 will make a verdict that is advisory, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers will make the final call on liability.<\/p>\n If Musk prevails, the judge could order the unwinding of OpenAI\u2019s 2025 for-profit restructuring, the removal of Altman and Brockman from their roles and up to $150 billion redirected to the nonprofit foundation. These could significantly impact OpenAI\u2019s IPO timeline as well as the industry at large. Musk\u2019s own xAI, meanwhile, is expected to go public as part of SpaceX as early as June at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion<\/a>.<\/p>\n On the other hand, if OpenAI wins, it cements the argument that a nonprofit of this kind can evolve into a commercial entity of this scale \u2014 and that a co-founder who walked away has limited legal recourse, regardless of the founding language.<\/p>\n Arguably, though, neither outcome fully ties up one of the underlying knots the trial surfaced. <\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s origins were far messier than either side\u2019s public narrative: Musk did push for structures that would have given him control, and Altman and Brockman became extraordinarily wealthy from an organization built around the language of altruism. The judge will have the final word on the legal angles, but the trial and discourse exposes something the verdict may not be able to resolve \u2014 the most consequential tech of our times was informed, to a large extent, by ego, power and control. OpenAI exists because of a falling-out between two men who each wanted to win the AI race, just on different terms. The public, who will live with whatever AI becomes, had no seat at that table.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"TOPSHOT – Inflatable punching bags with added pictures of Elon Musk and Sam Altman are seen outside the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":73569,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[150],"tags":[202,26809,12693,12644,42103,13521,42101,42102,581,38523,40797],"class_list":{"0":"post-73568","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-sam-altman","8":"tag-elon-musk","9":"tag-elon-musk-lawsuit","10":"tag-elon-musk-openai-lawsuit","11":"tag-elon-musk-sam-altman","12":"tag-openai-ipo-2026","13":"tag-openai-lawsuit","14":"tag-openai-lawsuit-verdict","15":"tag-openai-nonprofit-for-profit","16":"tag-sam-altman","17":"tag-sam-altman-testimony","18":"tag-satya-nadella-openai"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@people\/116583766657920915","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73568\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/73569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}