The nine-person jury will consider claims brought by Elon Musk against OpenAI, chief executive Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman after three weeks of testimony that exposed deep divisions over the company’s founding mission, commercial growth and control of advanced AI systems. The verdict will be advisory, with US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers retaining authority over remedies if liability is found.
Musk’s case rests on the argument that OpenAI was launched as a nonprofit laboratory committed to developing artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity, but was later redirected towards a structure that gave investors and executives access to vast economic upside. His lawyers have asked the court to consider sweeping remedies, including the removal of Altman and Brockman, reversal of the corporate restructuring, and damages intended for OpenAI’s charitable arm.
OpenAI has denied wrongdoing and argued that the move towards a capped-profit and then public benefit corporation model was necessary to raise the extraordinary sums required to build frontier AI. Its defence has also sought to portray Musk’s lawsuit as driven by rivalry after he left OpenAI and later built xAI, a competing artificial intelligence company.
Closing arguments sharpened the credibility battle that has run through the trial. Musk’s legal team argued that Altman and Brockman departed from the organisation’s original commitments and placed private gain above public benefit. OpenAI’s lawyers countered that Musk had known about plans for a profit-oriented structure years earlier, had no written agreement guaranteeing the organisation would remain permanently nonprofit, and had himself explored ways to control the company.
The dispute has significance beyond the personal rupture between Musk and Altman. OpenAI’s restructuring in October 2025 converted its operating business into a public benefit corporation while keeping the nonprofit foundation in a controlling position. The arrangement followed regulatory review in California and Delaware and helped clear the way for continued fundraising, deeper commercial partnerships and a possible future public listing.
OpenAI’s rise has been closely tied to Microsoft, whose backing helped finance the computing infrastructure required for large language models and consumer products such as ChatGPT. Microsoft’s role featured heavily in the trial, with testimony and evidence examining whether its investments supported OpenAI’s mission or accelerated a commercial turn that weakened nonprofit oversight.
At the centre of the courtroom fight is the question of whether charitable commitments made at OpenAI’s founding created enforceable obligations. Musk’s side argues that donors, staff and the public were assured that the organisation would remain dedicated to safe AI development outside ordinary corporate pressures. OpenAI’s side maintains that no binding promise prevented structural change and that the company’s mission still guides its governance.
The case has also revived scrutiny of OpenAI’s turbulent internal history. Altman was briefly removed by the board in November 2023 before being reinstated after an employee revolt and pressure from major commercial partners. That episode, long viewed as a warning about the fragility of AI governance, has returned in court as part of a broader examination of board authority, executive power and investor influence.
For the AI industry, the trial has become a test of how courts may treat mission-driven technology organisations once they scale into multibillion-dollar businesses. Start-ups developing powerful AI systems often rely on hybrid structures, public-interest language and unusually complex investment terms. A ruling against OpenAI could force boards, donors and investors across the sector to revisit how legally durable those commitments are.
OpenAI enters deliberations as one of the most valuable private technology groups in the world, with global attention on its products, partnerships and safety claims. Its executives argue that commercial growth is essential to secure talent, chips and data-centre capacity against rivals including Google DeepMind, Anthropic, Meta and xAI. Critics contend that the same capital demands risk pushing frontier AI companies towards speed, market share and investor returns at the expense of transparency and public accountability.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
