The jury deliberating Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI faces a paradox at the heart of the case: the man who donated $44 million to launch a nonprofit AI lab now demands $134 billion from that same organization—claiming it abandoned its humanitarian mission by becoming too successful.
In closing arguments Friday, lawyers for both sides traded accusations that could reshape Silicon Valley's approach to AI development. Musk's attorney Steven Molo argued that Sam Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman broke their promise to use Musk's donations to maintain a nonprofit dedicated to building AI for humanity's benefit. Instead, they created a for-profit subsidiary that made them extraordinarily wealthy.
OpenAI's lawyer Sarah Eddy fired back with a different narrative: Musk never secured a binding commitment to keep OpenAI nonprofit. His real motive, she argued, is to sabotage a competitor to his own AI company xAI, which is expected to IPO alongside SpaceX in June at a $1.75 trillion valuation.
"He sued too late," Eddy told the jury. "This is about eliminating competition."
The trial exposed how personal this dispute has become. Altman spent two days on the witness stand, answering questions about his alleged history of lying and self-dealing with companies doing business with OpenAI. But he turned the questioning into an attack on Musk's character, telling jurors that in 2017, when cofounders discussed creating a for-profit arm, Musk asked what would happen to his control if he died.
"Maybe the control of OpenAI should pass to my children," Altman quoted Musk as saying.
Musk's lawyers countered by highlighting OpenAI's own credibility problems. They pointed to the departures of safety-focused executives including Ilya Sutskever and Mira Murati as evidence of internal dysfunction. OpenAI's response: a golden trophy of a donkey's posterior—the symbol of an employee who stood up to Musk's aggressive AGI timeline and was called a "jackass" for doing so.
The restructuring at the center of the case occurred in 2025, when OpenAI converted its for-profit subsidiary into a public benefit corporation. Musk argues this violates the founding agreement; OpenAI contends the nonprofit parent still genuinely oversees the commercial arm, with board fiduciary duties protecting both entities.
The stakes extend far beyond this courtroom. If the judge orders restructuring, it could upend OpenAI's race toward an IPO at a valuation approaching $1 trillion—and signal that the nonprofit shell structure other AI ventures depend on is legally untenable. If Musk loses, it validates using corporate restructuring to unlock capital while maintaining a charitable parent.
The jury's verdict is advisory only. The judge retains final authority. But this case has moved beyond a business dispute into a referendum on AI governance—who controls transformative technology, whether public benefit can coexist with trillion-dollar valuations, and whether legal action is a legitimate accountability mechanism or a competitive weapon.
Deliberations begin Monday.