Closing arguments in Oakland have concluded a landmark trial that pits two former partners against each other — and puts the entire trajectory of artificial intelligence on the docket.
On Thursday, in a packed federal courtroom in Oakland, California, the curtain came down on one of the most consequential legal battles in the history of technology. Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI delivered their closing arguments to a nine-person jury — six women and three men — capping more than ten days of testimony that exposed private journals, text messages, and tense exchanges.
Musk himself was not present. While his attorney Steven Molo told jurors that the Tesla CEO was “sorry he could not be here,” Musk had arrived in Beijing, as his lawsuit against OpenAI’s Sam Altman played out — having boarded Air Force One with President Donald Trump. The spectacle drew a tart remark from OpenAI’s lead counsel, William Savitt, who expressed surprise at seeing the witness, still subject to recall, decide to board Air Force One and fly to China. It was a fitting emblem of a trial that has been as much performance as proceeding.
The jury’s verdict will be advisory, which means Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will make the final decision on liability. But the full weight of what’s at stake is bearing down: Musk has asked the judge to consider removing Altman and Brockman from their roles at OpenAI and to unwind the company’s 2025 recapitalization.
At its core, the case is a dispute over a promise — or whether a promise was ever made at all. Musk, the world’s richest man, was a co-founder of OpenAI, which started as a nonprofit in 2015 and went on to create ChatGPT. After Musk invested $38 million in its first years, his lawsuit filed in 2024 accused OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his top deputy of shifting into a moneymaking mode behind his back. Altman and Brockman say no such compact existed. There was no contract, no signed agreement — only the informal enthusiasm of visionaries in a hurry.
In his closing argument, Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo reiterated claims that OpenAI failed to open-source its technology, prioritize AI safety, and follow nonprofit customs and practices, and claimed that OpenAI insiders and investors — including Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft — enriched themselves at Musk’s expense. He put particular emphasis on Altman’s personal credibility, pointing to testimony from former colleagues Ilya Sutskever and Mira Murati as well as ex-board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, all of whom characterized Altman as untruthful. OpenAI’s attorneys countered with their own imagery, arguing that Musk wants jurors to believe his donations came with conditions attached, leaving OpenAI “tied in knots” as it sought to fulfill its mission. OpenAI and Microsoft also claimed that the lawsuit was filed too late and that Musk’s own misconduct should prevent him from prevailing.
In a trial that began last month, jurors have heard from some of the biggest names in AI, including Musk, Altman, OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Musk, appearing for three days at the outset, cut a combative figure — until the judge struck his repeated refrain of “you can’t just steal a charity” from the record, reminding him that he was “not a lawyer” and had “not taken a class in evidence.”
The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI — breakthrough technology that is increasingly feared as a threat to humanity’s survival. Scrutiny of Altman’s leadership comes at a crucial time for the company and its competitors. All three firms — OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic — are moving toward planned initial public offerings that are expected to be among the largest ever. A verdict for Musk could derail that process entirely and force the unwinding of the company’s transformation, which is now valued at $852 billion.
At the same time, the case has surfaced uncomfortable contradictions for Musk himself. During testimony, he admitted there was no written agreement governing the terms of his donation to OpenAI — undermining the foundation of his entire argument. He also admitted that xAI distills OpenAI’s models to train Grok, a practice that violates OpenAI’s terms of service.
Outside the federal courthouse, protesters again gathered as they have throughout the trial, warning that regardless of the outcome, they view artificial intelligence as a threat to humanity. Inside, Judge Gonzalez Rogers reminded jurors of their oath. “You must decide the case solely on the evidence before you,” she told them. “You will recall you took an oath to do so.” On Monday, they will begin to try.
How We Got Here — A Timeline
December 2015 — OpenAI Founded as a Nonprofit Musk and Altman are co-founders of OpenAI, which was founded in 2015 in San Francisco, pledging to develop safe AI for the benefit of humanity. Musk becomes one of its primary donors.
2017 — Musk Pushes for Control, and Is Rebuffed Internal discussions turned toward establishing a for-profit entity to attract capital, with Musk being initially part of those discussions. According to court evidence and emails OpenAI has since disclosed, in 2017 Musk proposed taking majority equity, controlling the board, and serving as CEO. He suggested the for-profit OpenAI could be made a subsidiary of Tesla. Altman, Brockman, and the other OpenAI founders rejected handing over control. Vision Times
Early 2018 — Musk Departs the Board Musk left in 2018 in the aftermath of a power struggle. The two camps would not reconcile for years.
2019 — OpenAI Creates Its Capped-Profit Subsidiary Facing soaring compute costs, OpenAI restructures, creating a for-profit arm. Microsoft invests $1 billion, beginning a partnership that would eventually total over $13 billion, including a $2 billion investment in 2021 and $10 billion in 2023. CNBC
November 2022 — ChatGPT Launches OpenAI releases ChatGPT to the public. The 2022 launch of ChatGPT propelled OpenAI from a research lab into a household name, and by 2025 the organization was hosting tender offers that valued it near $500 billion, dwarfing the worth of the original nonprofit Musk helped seed. Tech Insider
July 2023 — Musk Founds xAI Musk launches xAI as a direct competitor to OpenAI. OpenAI has argued in court filings that Musk’s real motive is to slow down a competitor of his own AI company. Tech Insider
February 29, 2024 — The Lawsuit Is Filed The lawsuit was originally filed on February 29, 2024. The complaint began as a state-court filing in San Francisco and was subsequently amended and refiled in federal court in Oakland later that year, with Microsoft added as a co-defendant.Tech Insider
November 2024 — Musk Seeks to Block the Conversion In November 2024, Musk filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block OpenAI from changing from a nonprofit to a for-profit, believing the conversion violates the terms of his contributions, which total $44 million, to OpenAI from 2016 to 2020.
February 2025 — A $97.4 Billion Bid, Rejected In February 2025, Musk and a consortium of investors offered $97.4 billion to acquire the OpenAI nonprofit’s assets, an unsolicited bid the OpenAI board unanimously rejected. Tech Insider
April 2025 — OpenAI Countersues In April 2025, OpenAI countersued Musk, claiming that his actions were deliberate tactics to slow OpenAI in order to benefit his own interests. Separately, twelve former OpenAI employees file an amicus brief stating that Altman “was a person of low integrity.”
October 28, 2025 — OpenAI Converts to a Public Benefit Corporation The October 2025 conversion of OpenAI to a public benefit corporation, which formally separated the for-profit entity from the nonprofit parent’s previous controlling structure, intensified the legal stakes. The recapitalization crystallized Musk’s grievance: in his telling, the original donors funded a charity that has now been transformed into a for-profit empire. Vision Times
April 25, 2026 — Last-Minute Settlement Feeler Two days before his trial against OpenAI begins, Musk texts Greg Brockman to gauge interest in a settlement. No agreement is reached. Electrek
April 27–30, 2026 — Trial Opens; Musk Takes the Stand Nine jurors are seated after several hours of questioning. On April 28, 2026, Elon Musk begins his testimony against Altman and OpenAI, lasting until April 30. He faces withering cross-examination — admitting no written donation agreement existed and being admonished repeatedly by the judge. CNBC
May 5–6, 2026 — Brockman Testifies Greg Brockman takes the stand and testifies that Musk wanted OpenAI to go for-profit — but only if he was in charge, partly to fund $80 billion for Mars colonization. Brockman also testifies that open-sourcing the technology “was not a topic of conversation.” Electrek
May 11, 2026 — Satya Nadella on the Stand Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testifies, saying he was “very proud” that Microsoft took the risk to invest in OpenAI when “no one else was willing.” He says Musk never raised concerns about the Microsoft investment directly with him. A 2022 internal email surfaces in which Nadella wrote: “I don’t want to be IBM and OpenAI to be Microsoft.” CNBC
May 14, 2026 — Closing Arguments; The Plaintiff Is in Beijing The first phase of the Musk v. Altman trial concludes in federal court in Oakland after attorneys for both sides present their closing arguments. The nine-person jury will begin deliberating on Monday. The jury’s verdict will be advisory. As the jury starts deliberations, the second stage of the trial — known as the remedies phase — will also begin, with Judge Gonzalez Rogers hearing arguments about potential damages and next steps if OpenAI, Altman, and Brockman are found liable. CNBC
Whether the judge ultimately sides with Musk or Altman, the trial has already accomplished something remarkable: it has pried open the black box of Silicon Valley’s founding mythology, exposing the gap between the altruistic language these men used to describe their ambitions and the intensely competitive, ego-driven reality in which those ambitions played out. The world’s most powerful AI company was not built on a handshake and a noble promise. It was built on a fractured partnership, a parade of broken conversations, and an $852 billion question that a nine-person jury in Oakland is now being asked to answer.
Subscribe to EuroLuminant for independent European journalism.
