Jury throws out Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI after less than two hours of deliberation — Unanimous vote that Musk filed the lawsuit too late
All claims dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, clearing a major obstacle for OpenAI's planned IPO.
A federal jury in Oakland, California, on Monday unanimously rejected every claim in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, co-founder Greg Brockman, and Microsoft. The nine-member jury found that Musk filed too late, with all claims barred by the statute of limitations. Deliberations began at 8:30 a.m. Pacific and ended at 10:23 a.m. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers immediately accepted the verdict as her own.
Musk had sought around $130 billion in damages paid to OpenAI's nonprofit arm, the removal of Altman and Brockman from their leadership roles, and the dismantling of the for-profit entity that has turned OpenAI into an $852 billion company. The jury's finding on timeliness meant it never reached the underlying question of whether Altman and Brockman breached their duty to OpenAI's original nonprofit mission.
The case ultimately hinged on when Musk became aware of the alleged breach: California law imposes a three-year window for charitable trust claims and a two-year window for unjust enrichment. Musk testified that he waited to sue because he believed Altman's reassurances over the years, and that Microsoft's $10 billion investment in OpenAI's for-profit arm in 2023 was the moment he concluded the charity had been "stolen".
OpenAI's attorneys countered that Musk had known about the for-profit transition since at least 2017 and had even pushed for it himself, registering a company through his family office intended to serve as a for-profit version of OpenAI. "There's a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury's finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said after the verdict.
While Musk's legal team reserves the right to appeal, the judge suggested that it would be difficult because the statute of limitations question was a factual determination, not a legal ruling. The verdict ultimately removes the most prominent legal threat to OpenAI's ongoing restructuring from a nonprofit into a for-profit public benefit corporation.
The company closed a $122 billion funding round in March at an $852 billion valuation, with $30 billion from Nvidia, $50 billion from Amazon, and $30 billion from SoftBank. OpenAI has been preparing for a potential Q4 2026 IPO, though analysts at PitchBook recently suggested the timeline could slip into 2027 given the company's cost structure and $1.15 trillion in long-term infrastructure commitments.
Microsoft, which invested $13 billion in OpenAI between 2019 and 2023 and was named as a co-defendant for allegedly aiding the breach, was also cleared by the jury on the same statute of limitations grounds. "The finding of the jury confirms that what this lawsuit was was a hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor," OpenAI attorney William Savitt told reporters outside the courthouse, according to CNN.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Neither Musk, Altman, nor Brockman was present in court to hear the verdict. The three-week trial featured testimony from six tech billionaires, including OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever, and hundreds of pages of private emails, text messages, and internal meeting notes entered into evidence.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Luke James is a freelance writer and journalist. Although his background is in legal, he has a personal interest in all things tech, especially hardware and microelectronics, and anything regulatory.
-
hotaru251 git bent muskrat.Reply
I dislike openai greatly but the muskrat deserves every L he can get.
also wasn't he only whining after they removed him as he had also planned to make it for profit early on?
anyone who paid attention to "ai"'s cost knew that it was always going to be for profit as it is impossible to do otherwise and still be relevant -
alan.campbell99 Some form of M.A.D. would have been nice to see but there was never any chance of that imho.Reply -
blppt Must be nice to waste taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits. Ahhh, to be insanely rich.Reply -
blppt Reply
Politics aside, I find it absolutely fascinating that so many people line up to throw money at Musk when he was AGAIN appearing high in public at the China summit.hotaru251 said:git bent muskrat.
I dislike openai greatly but the muskrat deserves every L he can get.
also wasn't he only whining after they removed him as he had also planned to make it for profit early on?
anyone who paid attention to "ai"'s cost knew that it was always going to be for profit as it is impossible to do otherwise and still be relevant
High finance continues to make no sense to me. -
bit_user Reply
I know. I really wanted them both to somehow lose!alan.campbell99 said:Some form of M.A.D. would have been nice to see but there was never any chance of that imho.
I think maybe there's an upside though, in terms of what's come to light in the discovery process and testimony? Usually, cases like this get settled out of court, and that info never sees the light of day. Now, it's public record! -
bit_user Reply
Since this is a civil case, Musk should be paying the court costs.blppt said:Must be nice to waste taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits. Ahhh, to be insanely rich. -
helper800 Reply
The amount of tax revenue generated from the cost of the lawyers alone is orders of magnitude more than the cost to try the case.blppt said:Must be nice to waste taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits. Ahhh, to be insanely rich. -
American2021 Sorry Elon, I was rooting for you against evil Sam, but an Oakland California jury? Seriously though?Reply -
blppt Reply
As if somehow that jury pool would be more likely to side with Altman without supporting evidence?American2021 said:Sorry Elon, I was rooting for you against evil Sam, but an Oakland California jury? Seriously though?
Neither guy is particularly likeable, no matter where you held the trial, unless you held it in an area where a Tesla Gigafactory is the only steady employment.