Musk v. Altman Trial Goes to the Jury: Three Weeks of Testimony, $150 Billion at Stake, and One Messy Verdict Ahead
Closing arguments wrapped May 14 in the Musk v. Altman trial. The nine-person jury began deliberating May 18. Here's everything that happened in the courtroom, what the jury has to decide, and what's actually at stake for the AI industry.
Three weeks. Twenty witnesses. One golden donkey trophy. The Musk v. Altman trial wrapped closing arguments on May 14 in Oakland federal court, and the nine-person jury began deliberations this morning, May 18.
A verdict could land any day this week. It will be advisory. The final ruling rests with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, but she's signaled she'll follow the jury's guidance. Here's what happened, what's at stake, and what happens next.
What Musk wants
Elon Musk is suing Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI for breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. He's asking for about $150 billion in damages, to be paid to OpenAI's nonprofit arm, and for the court to unwind OpenAI's 2025 for-profit restructuring. He also wants Altman and Brockman removed.
The core argument: Musk donated $38 million to OpenAI when it was a nonprofit dedicated to benefiting humanity. The organization then transformed into a for-profit entity worth a trillion dollars, cut Musk out, and enriched its executives in the process. Musk says that's a betrayal of the original mission and a breach of fiduciary duty.
What OpenAI says
OpenAI's defense rests on three things. First, Musk knew about the for-profit plans as early as 2017 and didn't object. In fact, he pushed for majority control and was refused. Second, he waited too long to sue, filing beyond the three-year statute of limitations. Third, the lawsuit is competitive sabotage: Musk runs xAI, a direct ChatGPT competitor, and wants to slow OpenAI down.
The statute of limitations question is the first thing the jury has to decide. If they find Musk waited too long, Judge Gonzalez Rogers has signaled she'll likely direct a verdict for the defendants. Case over.
The witnesses who mattered
Satya Nadella testified that Musk never contacted him about concerns over OpenAI's direction. That undercut Musk's claim that Microsoft's involvement proved the nonprofit mission had been abandoned. "We have each other's phone numbers," Nadella said on the stand.
Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI's former chief scientist, was harder for the defense. He described what he called Altman's "consistent pattern of lying" to the board. OpenAI's attorneys spent days trying to discredit that characterization. It wasn't clear they succeeded.
Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, former OpenAI board members, backed Sutskever's account. Their testimony gave Musk's side some of its most damaging moments of the trial.
Sam Altman denied betraying Musk and defended the for-profit conversion as necessary. On cross-examination, he faced internal emails that OpenAI's attorneys argued showed Musk was fully aware of the commercial direction years before he sued.
Shivon Zilis, a Musk business associate and mother of four of his children, took the stand but reportedly couldn't back up key parts of Musk's story.
Closing arguments
Musk's attorney Steven Molo kept it simple: "If you don't believe him," he said, pointing at Altman, "they cannot win." Altman's credibility was the central issue, he argued. The former board members' testimony destroyed it.
OpenAI's attorney Sarah Eddy called Musk's case "selective amnesia." He remembered what helped him and forgot what didn't. She argued Musk pushed for a for-profit structure himself, sought control he couldn't get, left, built a competitor, and now wants the courts to give him what negotiation couldn't.
Microsoft's attorney Russell Cohen kept it brief: Microsoft was "a responsible partner at every step" and played a minimal role in the key events.
What's actually at stake
The money is enormous but secondary. What's really at stake is control. OpenAI is racing toward an IPO at a reported $1 trillion valuation. Musk's xAI is expected to go public via SpaceX as early as June at a $1.75 trillion target. Both companies are betting their futures on convincing investors they'll dominate the next decade of AI.
A ruling that unwinds OpenAI's for-profit structure would throw that IPO into chaos and hand Musk a massive competitive gift. A ruling for OpenAI clears the path and shows the company's transformation from research nonprofit to the most valuable startup in history was legitimate.
The trial has also surfaced something uglier than legal arguments: a personal feud between two of the most powerful people in technology. The golden donkey trophy that OpenAI's lawyers presented in court, inscribed "Never stop being a jackass for safety," referenced Musk calling an employee a "jackass" years ago. The judge's response: "I don't want it." Whether the jury feels the same about the pettiness on display is anyone's guess.
What happens next
The jury is deliberating now. If they find for OpenAI on statute of limitations, the case ends. If they find for Musk, Judge Gonzalez Rogers will decide remedies. That's where things get unpredictable. She could order the unwinding of the restructuring, impose damages, remove executives, or craft something entirely new.
Either way, an appeal is guaranteed. This case is probably headed to the Ninth Circuit regardless of who wins round one. The final resolution is months, maybe years, away.
But the trial has already done something lasting: it put the entire AI industry's founding story under oath and cross-examination. The narrative of who started what, with what promises, and for whose benefit now has a court record. That matters for more than just the two men fighting over it.