A California jury has rejected Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman, finding that the billionaire had waited too long to bring his claims against the company he helped launch.

The unanimous verdict, delivered in Oakland, California, federal court on Monday, found that Musk’s claims had expired under the relevant statute of limitations. Jurors deliberated for less than two hours after a three-week trial that included testimony from Musk, Altman, and other technology executives, including Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella.

Musk had accused OpenAI, Altman, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman of manipulating him into donating $38 million early in the company’s history, before later shifting the organisation away from its original non-profit mission.

The lawsuit centred on Musk’s claim that OpenAI had breached a non-profit contract by attaching a for-profit business to the organisation and accepting tens of billions of dollars from Microsoft and other investors. Musk argued that OpenAI had abandoned its founding mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.

The jury’s finding meant it was not required to consider the substance of Musk’s claims, as they concluded that the statute of limitations had passed for his claims.

OpenAI verdict clears major legal hurdle

The decision removes a significant legal challenge for OpenAI at a pivotal moment for the company as it moves towards an IPO.

The verdict could simplify the company’s path towards this, which could reportedly value the business at $1 trillion. However, the trial also placed Altman’s reputation under scrutiny, with witnesses reportedly offering highly personal testimony and multiple witnesses describing him as a liar.

Musk co-founded OpenAI with Altman and others in 2015 but left the company’s board in 2018 after his co-founders denied him control. OpenAI established a for-profit business the following year.

Since leaving OpenAI, Musk has become an outspoken critic of Altman and the company’s direction. He has also founded his own AI startup, xAI, which is now part of his space and rocket company SpaceX.

Musk accused OpenAI of wrongfully enriching investors and insiders at the expense of the non-profit, while failing to prioritise AI safety. He also alleged that Microsoft aided and abetted OpenAI in its allegedly improper transition towards a more commercial model.

Musk’s other claims against Microsoft were dismissed as a matter of law following the jury’s findings on the claims against OpenAI.

Musk vows appeal

Following the verdict, Musk’s lawyers said in court that he reserved the right to appeal. Speaking to reporters after the decision, Musk lawyer Marc Toberoff said there would be a strong basis to challenge the outcome.

“This one is not over,” he said. “The ruling, based on the statute of limitations, has factual components but it has major legal components as well.”

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who oversaw the trial, said Musk may face a difficult path on appeal because whether the statute of limitations had run out before he sued was a factual issue.

“There’s a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot,” the judge said.

Musk also criticised the verdict on X shortly after it was delivered, writing that the decision created “a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years!”

He also accused the judge overseeing the case of being a “terrible activist” who used the jury “as a fig leaf.”

That post has since been deleted.

In another post to X, Musk said he would appeal, arguing that the jury did not decide “on the merits of the case” and that the decision was based on a “calendar technicality”.

Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.

There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026

The case had focused heavily on whether Musk knew about OpenAI’s commercial ambitions long before filing his lawsuit in August 2024. Musk had a three-year statute of limitations to sue, and OpenAI’s lawyers argued that he was aware several years earlier of the company’s plans to scale and raise significant capital.

Musk frames case as charity dispute

On the opening day of the trial, Musk took the stand and was asked by one of his lawyers what the legal action was about.

“It’s actually very simple,” he said. “It’s not OK to steal a charity… If it’s okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving will be destroyed.”

Musk’s legal team argued that OpenAI’s conduct could set a damaging precedent for startups that begin as non-profits before creating for-profit entities, raising large sums of money, and enriching officers and directors.

Toberoff said the verdict could encourage other startups that begin as non-profits but have greater ambitions to raise money, create for-profit entities to scale, and make their officers and directors rich.

OpenAI rejected Musk’s claims, arguing that it was Musk who had been motivated by financial interests and control. The company said Musk supported the idea of OpenAI becoming a for-profit business and waited too long to challenge the structure in court.

Altman told the jury during his testimony that Musk had not only supported OpenAI becoming a for-profit business, but had also sought long-term control of the organisation.

Recommended reading

• AI May Displace 3M Jobs, But Only Modest Job Losses Expected
• UK Hit Hardest By AI Job Losses, Morgan Stanley Finds
• Report: More than Half of Firms Regret Cutting Jobs for AI
• IMF: AI Will Worsen Inequality and Affect 40% of Jobs

“A particularly hair-raising moment was when my co-founders asked, ‘If you have control, what happens when you die?'” Altman recalled in court. “He said something like, ‘maybe it should pass to my children.'”

During closing arguments, Musk lawyer Steven Molo told jurors that Altman’s credibility was central to the case. He said several witnesses had questioned Altman’s candour or described him as a liar, and noted that Altman did not give an unqualified yes when asked during the trial if he was completely trustworthy.

“Sam Altman’s credibility is directly at issue,” Molo said. “If you don’t believe him, they cannot win.”

Sarah Eddy, a lawyer for the OpenAI defendants, accused Musk and his legal team in her closing arguments of relying on “sound bites and irrelevant false accusations.”

Outside the Oakland courthouse, Sam Singer, a spokesperson for OpenAI, described the verdict as a “tremendous victory”.

“This was nothing but an effort by Mr Musk to slow down a competitor,” he said, adding that it was a victory “for the justice system as well”.