Musk Lawyers Accuse OpenAI of Deception as Trial Closes

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI presented their final arguments Thursday in a federal courtroom in Oakland, California, marking the end of testimony in a case that centers on whether the artificial intelligence company abandoned its original nonprofit mission. Musk, who helped launch OpenAI in 2015 and contributed roughly 38 million dollars in its early years, claims that chief executive Sam Altman and other leaders secretly pivoted the organization toward profit making without his consent. OpenAI maintains that no binding restrictions were placed on the donations and that structural changes were necessary to attract talent and capital in a rapidly advancing field.

The jury must first determine whether Musk filed his suit within the required time limits. OpenAI contends that the two year statute of limitations bars claims arising before August 2021. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has indicated that a finding against Musk on this threshold issue would likely end the case in the defendants favor. Much of the evidence focused on events from 2015 through 2019, leaving jurors to weigh whether Musk knew or should have known about the shift well before he sued in 2024.

Musk seeks Altman's removal from OpenAI's board, an end to the company's public benefit corporation status, and up to 150 billion dollars in damages that he says would return to the nonprofit arm. OpenAI counters that the suit amounts to an attempt to hobble a rival while Musk advances his own AI venture, xAI. Attorneys for the company argued that Musk's donations carried no specific conditions and that OpenAI has continued to prioritize safe and beneficial artificial intelligence even after adopting a hybrid structure that includes for profit elements.

Testimony from several witnesses highlighted tensions over leadership credibility. Former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever and ex chief technology officer Mira Murati appeared, along with board members who had raised concerns about Altman in the past. Musk's side portrayed Altman as having misled donors about the permanence of the nonprofit model. OpenAI's lawyers responded that changes in corporate form reflected practical needs to compete for engineers and computing resources, not personal enrichment schemes.

Musk himself testified last month and was placed under recall status by the judge. Despite that status, he traveled to China this week as part of a presidential trade delegation, a move that drew notice because Beijing lies more than five thousand miles from the courthouse. Legal observers noted that witnesses under recall ordinarily remain within quick reach, though no formal prohibition prevented the trip.

The outcome carries immediate commercial stakes. OpenAI, along with competitors Anthropic and xAI, has been preparing for large initial public offerings. A verdict favoring Musk could force OpenAI to unwind its for profit arm and derail those plans. Conversely, a defense victory would affirm that organizations may adapt their structures when technological demands outstrip original nonprofit constraints.

The case illustrates a recurring pattern in high technology development. Early ideals of open collaboration often encounter the realities of capital intensity and talent competition. Musk's own companies operate squarely within market incentives, a fact that some trial evidence placed alongside OpenAI's evolution. Jurors are now left to decide whether OpenAI's adjustments represented a breach of trust or an unavoidable response to the demands of building frontier systems. Closing arguments concluded Thursday, and deliberations are expected to begin shortly.