Musk vs. OpenAI Trial: What the Jury Is Deciding and Why It Matters

TLDR

• Elon Musk sued OpenAI and Sam Altman in 2024, claiming they broke their promise to keep OpenAI a nonprofit.
• A jury began deliberations on Monday to decide if Altman and OpenAI co-founders breached a charitable trust.
• Musk testified he founded, funded, and recruited key talent for OpenAI, contributing around $38 million, far less than the $1 billion he once pledged.
• Emails from 2017 show OpenAI co-founders questioned whether Altman’s main motivation was political ambition rather than AI development.
• Altman admitted he once considered running for California governor and acknowledged Musk wanted as much as 90% control of OpenAI before walking away in 2018.

---

Elon Musk and Sam Altman co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit designed to be a counterweight to Google’s dominance in artificial intelligence. A decade later, they are in a federal courtroom in Oakland, California, fighting over what that promise was worth.

THESE TEXTS FROM WHEN SAM ALTMAN GOT FIRED FROM OPENAI JUST GOT RELEASED

These were just entered into evidence in the Elon Musk vs. Sam Altman trial.

Here is a text chain between Sam Altman and Mira Mirati from November 19th, 2023:

– Sam: “can you indicate directionally good… pic.twitter.com/DD7eU9h3Vr

— Evan (@StockMKTNewz) May 7, 2026

Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, alleging Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman broke the founding agreement by transitioning OpenAI toward a for-profit structure. OpenAI is now valued at over $850 billion. Musk’s own AI company, xAI, merged with SpaceX in February and is valued at $1.25 trillion.

Closing arguments wrapped up last Thursday after three weeks of testimony. A jury began deliberations Monday.

How the Relationship Fell Apart

The two men started as close allies. In emails from 2015, Musk praised the early OpenAI team: “I’m super impressed with everyone so far. This is a great team.”

But cracks appeared by 2017. Musk pushed to take as much as 90% equity in any future for-profit entity and at one point suggested merging OpenAI into Tesla. Altman and other co-founders rejected both ideas.

Musk ultimately left the OpenAI board in 2018 after donating roughly $38 million — far short of the $1 billion he had pledged. He said in court: “I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people, taught them everything I know, provided all the initial funding.”

Altman countered that no formal commitments were ever made about OpenAI’s structure and that Musk’s demand for total control was the real sticking point.

“Elon said he would only work on companies that he totally controlled,” Altman testified.

Questions About Altman’s Motivations

Internal emails from 2017 surfaced during the trial showing co-founders Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman questioning Altman’s priorities. The two asked him directly: “Is AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals?”

Altman acknowledged under questioning that he had considered running for California governor. He has since met with over 100 members of Congress and OpenAI is now working with Democratic insiders as it moves toward an IPO.

Altman’s lawyer argued Musk is pursuing the lawsuit out of “vengeance” and seeking $150 billion in damages. Musk’s lawyer called Altman’s focus on the CEO title a “fixation” with potential political motives.

On credibility, Musk’s lawyer asked Altman directly: “Do you always tell the truth?” Altman responded: “I believe I’m a truthful person…I am sure there is some time in my life when I have not.”

What Happens Next

Both SpaceX and OpenAI are racing toward public markets. SpaceX is expected to file its IPO prospectus as soon as this week. A verdict in the case could affect OpenAI’s plans.

UC Berkeley law professor Stavros Gadinis put it plainly: “After weeks of damaging testimony, the public is left choosing between two dueling billionaires, each convinced he is the rightful steward of transformative technology. The answer most people will reach is: neither.”

The jury is now deciding whether Altman and Brockman should be held liable for breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment.