Historic Trial Between Elon Musk and OpenAI Enters Closing Arguments
Al Jazeera
Closing arguments began May 15 in the historic trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI. Musk’s attorney accused the ChatGPT maker of abandoning its nonprofit mission, while OpenAI countered that Musk waited too long to sue and sought personal control.
On May 15, lawyers representing OpenAI and billionaire Elon Musk began their closing arguments in a landmark trial that could determine the future of the company behind ChatGPT.
The lawsuit was brought by Musk, the world’s richest person and founder of rival AI model Grok. He sued OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and Chairman Greg Brockman, alleging the company deviated from its founding mission to build safe, beneficial artificial intelligence for humanity.
Musk was not present in court for Thursday’s closing arguments, as he was in China on a diplomatic trip with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, used his final statement to accuse OpenAI of violating charitable trust rules by enriching investors and insiders at the expense of the nonprofit organization. He also sought to portray Altman as untrustworthy.
“I confronted Sam Altman with the fact that five witnesses in this trial—all of whom he knew for years and had worked with—called him a liar under oath. ‘Liar’ is a very strong word in a courtroom,” Molo said.
The five individuals Molo cited included Musk himself; Ilya Sutskever, former OpenAI chief scientist; Mira Murati, former chief technology officer; and former board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley. Musk had invested $38 million into OpenAI in its early days.
“Sam Altman’s credibility is directly at issue in this case,” Molo emphasized.
The lawsuit also accused Microsoft—which invested $1 billion in OpenAI in 2019 and an additional $10 billion in 2023—of aiding and abetting OpenAI’s alleged misconduct.
“Microsoft knew exactly what OpenAI was doing at every step,” Molo said.
OpenAI’s legal team rebutted, arguing that Musk waited too long to sue over the company’s alleged breach of its founding agreement. Defense attorney Sarah Eddy suggested Musk himself was not credible.
“Mr. Musk is the one whose testimony is contradicted by every other witness and all the documents,” Eddy said.
Eddy added that by 2017, everyone involved with OpenAI—including Musk, who was still on the board at the time—understood the company needed more money than it could raise as a nonprofit to fulfill its mission.
She also implied that Musk had hoped to profit from the company.
“Mr. Musk wanted to turn OpenAI into a for-profit company that he could control,” Eddy said. “But the other founders refused to hand over the keys to AGI to one person, let alone Elon Musk.”
The issue of whether the lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations could be pivotal. In a court filing last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote that “if the jury finds Musk did not file within the statute of limitations, it is very likely” she would “accept that finding and enter judgment for the defendants.”
If the jury decides the lawsuit was timely, they must determine whether OpenAI holds a ‘charitable trust’ and whether the company and its leaders violated that trust.
The trial comes as OpenAI moves toward an initial public offering (IPO), expected to be one of the largest in history.
