California jury in Elon Musk lawsuit unanimously sides with OpenAI

A U.S. jury on Monday ruled against Elon Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, finding the artificial intelligence company not liable to the world’s richest person for having ‌allegedly strayed from its original mission to benefit humanity.

In a unanimous verdict, the jury in Oakland, Calif., Federal Court said Musk had brought his case too late. The jury deliberated less than two hours.

The trial had widely been seen as a critical moment for the future of OpenAI and artificial intelligence generally, both in how it should be ​used and who should benefit from it.

People use AI for myriad purposes, such ​as education, facial recognition, financial advice, journalism, legal research, medical diagnoses and harmful deepfakes.

Following the verdict, Musk said the the judgement sets a “terrible precedent” and plans to appeal, adding the verdict “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a caldendar technicality.”

However, the judge suggested Musk may have an uphill battle because whether the statute of limitations ran out before Musk 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,” U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez ⁠Rogers said.

In his 2024 lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI, its chief ‌executive Sam Altman and its president Greg Brockman of manipulating him into giving $38 million, then going behind his back by attaching a for-profit business to its original nonprofit and accepting tens of billions of dollars from Microsoft and other investors.

Musk called the OpenAI defendants’ conduct “stealing a charity.”

OpenAI was founded by Altman, Musk and several others in 2015. Musk ⁠left its board in 2018, and OpenAI set up a for-profit business the next year.

Many ⁠people express distrust ⁠of the technology and worry it could displace ‌people from their jobs.

The verdict followed 11 days of testimony and arguments that saw Musk’s and Altman’s credibility come under repeated attack.

Each side accused the other of being more interested in money than serving the public.

In his closing argument, Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo reminded jurors that several witnesses questioned Altman’s candour or branded him a liar and 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.”

Musk accused OpenAI of wrongfully trying to enrich investors and insiders at the non-profit’s expense and failing to prioritize AI’s safety. He also contended Microsoft knew all along that OpenAI cared more about money than being altruistic.

OpenAI countered it was Musk who saw dollar ⁠signs and he waited too long to claim OpenAI breached its founding agreement to build ⁠safe artificial intelligence to benefit humanity.

“Mr. Musk may have the Midas touch in some ⁠areas, ⁠but not in AI,” William Savitt, a ​lawyer for OpenAI, said in his closing argument.

OpenAI competes with companies such as Anthropic and ​xAI, and is preparing for a ⁠possible initial public offering that could value the business at $1 trillion US.

Microsoft has spent more than $100 billion on its partnership with OpenAI, a Microsoft executive testified.

Musk’s xAI is now part of his space and rocket company SpaceX, which is preparing an initial public offering (IPO) that could exceed OpenAI’s in size.