Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI have delivered starkly different closing arguments in a trial that has come to symbolize a broader question: who can be trusted to steer the future of artificial intelligence.
How the case reached its climax
Musk first sued OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and president Greg Brockman in 2024, later adding Microsoft, accusing them of betraying OpenAI’s founding promise to build AI “for the benefit of humanity” as a nonprofit.1 Jurors have since heard weeks of testimony from Musk, Altman, senior OpenAI figures, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella about donor expectations, governance changes, and the launch of OpenAI’s lucrative for‑profit arm.1
As the trial entered its final week, coverage noted that proceedings had “spilled plenty of dirt—and raised more questions than answers about how the AI giant should be governed.”2 Commentators argued that the core issue had narrowed to whether Altman and Musk themselves are credible stewards of powerful AI systems.3
Musk’s side: broken promises and alleged deception
On Thursday, Musk’s lead attorney Steven Molo opened his closing statement by apologizing for Musk’s absence—he was in China—and leaned heavily on the importance of jury service.4 Molo argued that OpenAI “misused the millions of dollars Musk donated and violated their duty to uphold OpenAI's founding ethos,” claiming executives pivoted to a for‑profit model and enriched themselves through stock grants and self‑dealing.1
He framed the case around Altman’s trustworthiness, pointing to testimony from former colleagues and ex‑board members who, he argued, undercut Altman’s claims of honesty.1 Outside court, Musk has cast himself as the wronged party, at one point summarizing his view of critics and rivals in a two‑word post on X: “Such hypocrisy.”
5
Some observers, however, were unimpressed. One Verge reporter described Molo’s performance as a “book report” that “did not overwhelm me with confidence,” noting that many of his key assertions were “profoundly arguable.”6
OpenAI’s response: no strings, and an attack on motive
OpenAI counters that Musk’s roughly $38 million in early donations came “without specific strings attached” and that the organization “has continued to pursue its mission, albeit with various changes in structure.”1 In its own closing argument, the company emphasized legal defenses including statutes of limitations, unreasonable delay, and the doctrine of “unclean hands,” arguing Musk’s own conduct should bar him from relief.7
During her closing, OpenAI lawyer Sarah Eddy opened aggressively, telling jurors that Musk has claimed he made donations with conditions but that “even the mother of his children can’t back his story.”8 Another defense lawyer, William Savitt, highlighted how often Musk “didn’t recall” key details and questioned how a “sophisticated businessman” could misunderstand a four‑page term sheet OpenAI had sent him.9
Defense counsel also argued that Musk’s true aim is to “sabotage a competitor” to xAI, his own AI company launched in 2023, at a time when OpenAI is racing toward a potential IPO near a $1 trillion valuation and xAI is preparing to go public via SpaceX at an estimated $1.75 billion.2
What the jury is actually deciding
Despite the personal attacks, jurors face a narrow set of legal questions. They must decide whether OpenAI and its cofounders breached a charitable trust by failing to use Musk’s donations for a specific charitable purpose, whether they were unjustly enriched through the for‑profit arm, and whether Microsoft aided any breach by knowing of Musk’s alleged conditions and helping cause harm.7
Their verdict will be advisory only; the judge can overrule it and will separately decide on any remedies, including Musk’s request to unwind OpenAI’s 2025 restructuring and remove Altman and Brockman from their roles, as well as claims for up to $134 billion in damages to be paid to OpenAI’s nonprofit entity.2
Beyond the courtroom: a question of trust
Outside legal circles, analysts say the trial’s “final arguments kept circling back to one question: can we trust the people in charge of AI?”3 Tech journalists note that because AI labs are privately held and opaque, “it’s really come down to trust” in their leaders’ promises about safety and public benefit.10
Some coverage has been scathing, concluding that Musk v. Altman “accomplished nothing but airing dirty laundry,” dominated by gossip about Musk’s attempts to buy or kneecap OpenAI and revelations such as his admission that xAI had distilled models from OpenAI’s systems.9 Yet others argue the spectacle has at least forced a public debate over how frontier AI should be governed and who, if anyone, can be believed when the stakes are this high.2
The nine‑member California jury began deliberations this week, and an advisory verdict could come as soon as next week.2 Whatever they decide, the final word on the future of OpenAI—and the credibility of its founders—will rest with the judge.