Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI have delivered sharply divergent closing arguments in a trial that could reshape control of one of the world’s most powerful AI companies and influence how artificial intelligence is governed.

How the dispute got here

Musk sued OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman and later Microsoft, alleging they betrayed OpenAI’s founding promise to remain a nonprofit developing safe AI “for the benefit of humanity” and instead pursued personal enrichment through a for‑profit structure and stock grants.¹ OpenAI and Microsoft countered that Musk’s roughly $38 million in early donations came with no enforceable “strings attached” and that OpenAI has continued to pursue its mission despite reorganizing around a for‑profit subsidiary and then a public benefit corporation in 2025.¹

Over several weeks of testimony, jurors heard from Musk, Altman, OpenAI chair Bret Taylor, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and former board members, with both sides attacking each other’s credibility.² Commentators noted that the proceedings often devolved into “airing dirty laundry” rather than clarifying legal issues.³

Musk’s case in closing

On Thursday, Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo, speaking while Musk was in China and “sorry he could not be here,” began his closing by emphasizing the importance of jury service.⁴ He argued that OpenAI “misused the millions of dollars Musk donated and violated their duty to uphold OpenAI's founding ethos,” claiming executives chased “personal gain through stock grants and self‑dealing.”¹

Molo stressed that Musk wants Altman and Brockman removed and billions in damages awarded to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm, which Musk says he would donate back.¹ Outside court, Musk has amplified allies portraying the case as a fight against a hijacked charity and an “activist judge,” retweeting complaints that Sam Altman was allowed to “turn” a nonprofit pledged to benefit all humanity into something else.Elon Musk (elonmusk)⁵

Some observers, however, questioned the effectiveness of Molo’s presentation, likening it to a “book report” whose “point‑blank assertions were profoundly arguable.”⁶

OpenAI’s rebuttal and broader stakes

OpenAI’s lawyer Sarah Eddy answered by methodically walking jurors through the company’s documents and timeline. She argued that Musk’s donations were not conditioned on a perpetual nonprofit structure and that OpenAI “remains a nonprofit dedicated to developing AI safely,” despite its complex corporate evolution.² Opening her summation, she went straight at Musk’s credibility, saying that “even the mother of his children can’t back his story.”⁷

Tech analysts watching the trial’s final week said the case ultimately circled back to one question: “can we trust the people in charge of AI?”⁸ Some concluded that the trial “accomplished nothing but airing dirty laundry,” even as it exposed Musk’s failed attempts to acquire or undermine OpenAI and his admission that xAI had distilled OpenAI’s models.³

The jury will now deliver an advisory verdict, but the judge holds the final say on liability and any remedies, which could range from leaving OpenAI’s current structure intact to unwinding its 2025 restructuring and disrupting a potential IPO approaching a $1 trillion valuation.² Whatever the outcome, the case has already intensified public scrutiny of how AI leaders balance profit, power and promises to serve humanity.