The final week of the Musk v. Altman trial saw intense cross‑examination and closing arguments that left the jury with two starkly different portraits of the key figures. Elon Musk’s lawyers painted OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as a serial liar who broke promises to keep the company a nonprofit, while Altman’s team depicted Musk as a power‑hungry competitor trying to sabotage OpenAI for his own gain. With the jury set to deliberate this week, the outcome could reshape the future of artificial general intelligence (AGI) development. Here are the key questions and answers from the trial.
1. What were the core accusations made by Elon Musk's legal team against Sam Altman?
Musk’s lead attorney, Steven Molo, argued that Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman violated a binding promise to use Musk’s original donation—about $44 million—solely for maintaining OpenAI as a nonprofit dedicated to safe AI development. Instead, according to the complaint, they created a for‑profit subsidiary that made Altman and Brockman “extraordinarily wealthy.” Molo submitted that OpenAI’s 2025 restructuring into a public benefit corporation was an illegal move that betrayed the founding mission. He also grilled Altman on his alleged history of lying and engaging in self‑dealing with companies that do business with OpenAI, trying to undermine Altman’s credibility before the jury. The core accusation is breach of fiduciary duty—that Altman put personal profit above the safety and altruistic goals of the original nonprofit.
2. How did Sam Altman's defense respond to claims of lying and self‑dealing?
Altman’s lawyer, Sarah Eddy, countered that Altman and Brockman never explicitly promised to keep OpenAI a nonprofit. She argued that the original mission—to develop AI safely for the benefit of humanity—remains intact even after the restructuring, because OpenAI still operates a nonprofit arm that controls the for‑profit entities. Eddy emphasized that Musk’s own actions as a co‑founder (leaving to start xAI and then suing late) show his real motive is sabotage, not principle. When directly challenged on his truthfulness, Altman defended his integrity, citing OpenAI’s safety record and the numerous ethical safeguards put in place. The defense portrayed Musk as a sore loser who couldn’t control OpenAI and now wants to derail a competitor.
3. What role did the "donkey's ass" trophy play as evidence in the trial?
As part of their case for OpenAI’s commitment to AI safety, the OpenAI legal team brought into evidence a golden trophy of a donkey’s ass—an odd but telling exhibit. The trophy was given to an OpenAI employee after he was called a “jackass” for opposing Musk’s aggressive plans to race toward AGI without adequate safety testing. OpenAI presented this as proof that its leadership (including Altman) valued safety over speed, even when it meant defying Musk. The trophy became a symbol of internal resistance to Musk’s pressure. Musk’s lawyers mocked the exhibit as a gimmick, but several witnesses confirmed the story, reinforcing the idea that OpenAI’s team prioritized responsible development over Musk’s desire for rapid, unchecked progress.
4. Why does OpenAI's lawyer argue that Musk's lawsuit is too late and motivated by competition?
Eddy claimed that Musk waited too long to file his lawsuit—well after OpenAI’s for‑profit restructuring had been publicly known—and therefore the suit is barred by the statute of limitations. More pointedly, she argued that Musk’s real agenda is to “sabotage a competitor” to his own AI company, xAI, which he launched in 2023. According to Eddy, Musk is using the courtroom to gain a strategic advantage: if the judge unwinds OpenAI’s corporate structure, it could delay its IPO and tarnish its market position. Musk’s own statements about xAI’s coming IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation were cited to show his competitive concerns. This claim, if believed by the jury, could make Musk appear less as a crusader for AI safety and more as a businessman protecting his turf.
5. What specific remedies is Musk seeking from the court?
Musk is asking the judge to unwind the 2025 restructuring that turned OpenAI’s for‑profit subsidiary into a public benefit corporation. He also demands that Altman and Brockman be removed from their leadership roles. In addition, Musk is seeking potentially enormous damages: up to $134 billion from OpenAI and Microsoft (a major investor), with those damages awarded to OpenAI’s nonprofit entity. The theory is that this would compensate for the lost value that should have stayed with the nonprofit if the founders had kept their original promise. Finally, Musk wants a court order preventing OpenAI from moving forward with its planned IPO—which is currently valued at nearly $1 trillion—until the case is resolved. A ruling in Musk’s favor could effectively pause the company’s growth and force a major governance overhaul.
6. What are the potential financial impacts if the judge rules in Musk's favor?
The financial stakes are enormous. If the judge sides with Musk, OpenAI’s IPO would likely be derailed, disrupting a deal that could have raised tens of billions of dollars at a valuation close to $1 trillion. Microsoft, which has invested heavily in OpenAI, could face contractual liability and reputational damage. Meanwhile, Musk’s own company xAI is expected to go public as part of SpaceX as early as June, with a target valuation of $1.75 trillion—making it even more valuable than OpenAI. A favorable ruling could weaken OpenAI just as xAI enters the public markets, giving Musk a clear competitive advantage. On the other hand, if the judge dismisses the case, OpenAI will likely proceed with its IPO, and Musk’s lawsuit may be seen as a failed attempt to stifle a rival.
7. How did Altman characterize Musk's motives regarding control of AI?
During the trial, Altman testified about a pivotal conversation in 2017 when Musk and other co‑founders were discussing creating a for‑profit arm. According to Altman, when the group asked Musk what would happen to his control over the entity if he died, Musk replied, “Maybe the control of OpenAI should pass to my children.” Altman used this story to argue that Musk always wanted personal control—even beyond his own lifetime—rather than truly altruistic oversight. Altman painted Musk as a “power‑seeker” who only cared about safety when he couldn’t be the one in charge. This narrative was meant to counter Musk’s portrayal of himself as a selfless advocate for safe AI. The jury was left to decide which version of Musk—the safety champion or the empire builder—was more credible.
8. What happens next after the closing arguments?
The jury began deliberating on Monday and is expected to deliver an advisory verdict as early as next week. Importantly, this verdict is not binding on the judge, who will ultimately decide the case. The judge may either adopt the jury’s findings or overrule them. After the verdict, legal briefs will be filed, and a final ruling could come weeks or months later. If the judge rules in Musk’s favor, the remedies sought (see question 5) could force OpenAI to restructure its leadership and corporate form, affecting its IPO and partnership with Microsoft. If the judge rules against Musk, the lawsuit would likely be dismissed, allowing OpenAI to continue its current trajectory. Either way, the trial has already highlighted deep divisions over how AI should be governed and who should control its destiny.