"Stories, Not Facts": Jury Hands Stunning Victory to Sam Altman and OpenAI as Elon Musk Promises Appeal – $134bn Lawsuit Dismissed in Less Than Two Hours

18 May 2026 | Oakland, California — Updated 22:15 GMT

OAKLAND – A federal jury has handed Sam Altman and OpenAI a resounding victory in their bitter legal war with Elon Musk, finding the world's richest man failed to prove his claims that the AI startup broke a founding contract and "stole a charity." The verdict — delivered after less than two hours of deliberation — caps one of the most closely watched trials in tech history.

The nine-person jury in Oakland found Altman, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, and the company itself not liable for Musk's allegations of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Microsoft, which Musk had accused of aiding and abetting Altman, was also cleared. The jury determined that Musk's 2024 lawsuit was filed outside the statute of limitations, with key events dating back to 2017 — well beyond the three-year window to bring his claims.

'Stories, Not Facts': OpenAI Lead Attorney's Stinging Rebuke

Outside the courthouse, OpenAI's lead attorney, William Savitt, delivered a pointed response. "Mr Musk can tell his stories," Savitt said. "What the jury found today is just that: Stories, not facts." He added that the verdict was "not a technical decision; it's a substantive one," rejecting Musk's lawyers' framing of the outcome as merely procedural.

The jury's finding was technically a non-binding, advisory verdict, leaving Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers with ultimate authority to issue her own ruling. But Gonzalez Rogers immediately said she would agree with the jury's decision and dismissed Musk's claims. "I think there's a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury's finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot," she told Musk's attorney after the verdict.

In a gracious gesture, Gonzalez Rogers gave each juror a small pocket constitution that she signed, dated, and inscribed with the words: "Thank you for your service."

Musk Fires Back: 'I Will Appeal – This Creates a Dangerous Precedent'

Within hours of the verdict, Musk took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce his intention to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality," Musk wrote. "There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!"

"I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America," he added.

Musk's attorneys, Steven Molo and Marc Toberoff, framed the case as having proved a point regardless of the loss. Molo claimed the testimony was "valuable for the world to see" and insisted the jury's decision was a "technical" one — a characterization OpenAI's lawyers forcefully rejected.

Neither Musk, Altman nor Brockman were present in court for the verdict.

The Battle at the Core: Charity vs For-Profit

At the heart of the case was a fundamental question: Did Sam Altman betray Elon Musk and the founding mission of OpenAI?

Musk's lawsuit sought $134bn to be redistributed from OpenAI's for-profit arm to its non-profit. It also demanded the removal of Altman and Brockman from their leadership roles and the undoing of the company's for-profit restructuring. Musk accused Altman of swindling him into co-founding OpenAI in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to benefiting humanity — only to later twist it for personal gain.

OpenAI rejected all claims, arguing that Musk was always aware of plans to create a for-profit entity. The company's attorneys painted a different picture: Musk, they said, was motivated by jealousy after failing to take over OpenAI in 2018, leaving the company shortly after. They emphasized that OpenAI remains overseen by its non-profit organization and remains committed to what it calls "the mission" — helping the world with its technology.

One of the key legal arguments turned on timing. OpenAI successfully argued that Musk was well aware of the company's plans to pursue a for-profit structure as early as 2017, meaning his 2024 lawsuit fell outside California's three-year statute of limitations for such claims.

Silicon Valley's Biggest Names Take the Stand

The three-week trial featured testimony from some of Silicon Valley's most prominent executives. Musk, Altman, Brockman and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella all took the stand, at times facing combative cross-examinations in the Oakland courtroom.

Lawyers for both sides presented stacks of private texts, emails and other internal documents to build competing narratives of OpenAI's founding — specifically, when each party became aware of the company's for-profit plans. The trial delivered a rare behind-the-scenes look at OpenAI's fractious history and the fight between two of the industry's biggest names.

Although the verdict was a victory for Altman, the case made public many unflattering details and episodes involving both moguls. Neither emerged from the courtroom with their reputations entirely unscathed.

A Microsoft spokesperson welcomed the outcome. "The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear, and we welcome the jury's decision to dismiss these claims as untimely," the spokesperson said in a statement.

What Comes Next: IPO Path Cleared, Appeal Looms

The verdict provides OpenAI with a clear path ahead to pursue going public later this year at what analysts estimate could be a roughly $1tn valuation. The remedies portion of the case — which would have determined what OpenAI would owe Musk had the jury found liability — was canceled immediately after the verdict.

But Musk's promised appeal to the Ninth Circuit means the legal battle may not be over. The appeal could take months or years to resolve, and Musk has both the resources and the determination to pursue it. However, legal experts note that appellate courts typically defer to jury findings on questions of fact — and the statute of limitations argument that won the day is a legal question that could be reviewed.

For now, Sam Altman and OpenAI have secured a decisive victory. The jury, after hearing weeks of testimony from Silicon Valley's biggest names and reviewing hundreds of pieces of evidence, concluded that Musk waited too long to bring his claims. Whether that counts as a "technicality" or a "substantive" finding — as both sides now dispute — may itself become the next battleground.

Stay updated with the latest tech trends on our Tech Trends Page.