A California jury has dismissed Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, the BBC reports. Musk had accused the company and its founders of betraying OpenAI’s original mission when the organization, which began as a nonprofit, later transitioned toward a profit-oriented structure.
Musk argued that OpenAI co-founders, including Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, agreed to develop artificial general intelligence "for the benefit of humanity," and that this commitment was compromised when the organization’s structure changed. In contrast, Sam Altman testified that Musk not only supported turning OpenAI toward profit but also sought to exert long-term control over the company.
Jurors reviewed internal communications and heard witness testimony for three weeks. On Monday, after roughly two hours of deliberation, they reached a unanimous verdict to dismiss the case because Musk filed the lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired.
Elon Musk was an early investor in OpenAI; the startup launched as a nonprofit in 2015 and shifted toward a profit-oriented model in 2019 after Musk’s departure. In 2023, OpenAI received a $10 billion investment from Microsoft, a development that intensified Musk’s objections. Musk subsequently founded his own, less popular competitor, xAI.
Musk had previously filed a similar lawsuit in 2024, citing the same concerns. During that case, OpenAI made public email exchanges between its leadership and Musk showing that in the early years Musk pushed the company toward attracting more investment and pursuing greater profitability. Musk withdrew that prior complaint at the last moment.
The jury’s decision therefore disposed of the case on procedural grounds rather than making a substantive ruling on the merits: the claim was barred because it was filed after the applicable limitation period.
Why this matters
The lawsuit centered on accountability for changes in OpenAI’s structure and stated goals—an issue with potential implications for governance and the direction of AI development at major technology organizations. The dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds leaves open the possibility of future legal challenges under different circumstances.
