Musk Lawyers Accuse OpenAI of Deception as Trial Closes

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI delivered closing arguments Thursday in a federal trial in Oakland that has drawn intense scrutiny over how artificial intelligence should be developed and governed. The case turns on whether OpenAI abandoned its original nonprofit mission when it restructured to pursue commercial growth, and whether Musk waited too long to challenge those decisions in court.

Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015 with the stated goal of advancing artificial intelligence in ways that would benefit humanity rather than enrich a handful of companies or individuals. He contributed roughly 38 million dollars in the early years. Prosecutors in the case argue that OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman later shifted the organization toward profit-seeking arrangements, including partnerships with Microsoft, without Musk’s full knowledge or consent. Musk is asking jurors to award damages and to remove Altman from OpenAI’s board, moves that could complicate the company’s reported plans for a large initial public offering.

OpenAI’s defense has centered on two main points. First, its lawyers contend that Musk’s donations carried no explicit restrictions tying the funds to a permanent nonprofit structure. Second, they maintain that the company has continued to pursue ambitious research on advanced AI systems even as it adopted a hybrid structure that allows it to raise capital at scale. They also press the statute-of-limitations defense, noting that Musk filed suit in 2024 and arguing that any alleged harms occurred well before the relevant legal window. The presiding judge has indicated that if jurors accept the timing argument, she is likely to direct a verdict for the defendants.

Testimony over the past several weeks featured some of the most prominent figures in the field. Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella described his company’s multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI as a strategic bet on frontier research rather than an attempt to control the nonprofit’s direction. Former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever and ex-chief technology officer Mira Murati offered accounts of internal debates over governance and safety priorities. Altman himself took the stand to rebut claims that he misled Musk or the original board about the organization’s trajectory.

The trial has unfolded against a backdrop of rapid commercial consolidation in AI. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Musk’s own xAI are each positioning themselves for major capital raises or public listings. A ruling that forces OpenAI back toward a purely nonprofit model could alter competitive dynamics and raise fresh questions about how to fund the enormous computing resources required for next-generation models. At the same time, the case has surfaced recurring concerns about accountability when organizations transition from mission-driven charters to market-driven incentives.

Musk’s own conduct during the proceedings drew attention when he traveled to China last week for events tied to a presidential state visit. The judge had left open the possibility of recalling him as a witness, and legal observers noted that leaving the country under those circumstances is unusual. The episode did not halt closing arguments, which proceeded on schedule.

Jurors must now weigh competing narratives about intent, timing, and institutional change. Whatever verdict emerges, the trial has already illustrated how difficult it remains to reconcile the original ideals of open, safety-focused AI research with the economic pressures that now dominate the sector.