A jury ruled in favor of Sam Altman in the culmination of a long and bitter legal battle that pitted the richest person in the world against a leader of the AI boom.

The federal jury in Oakland, California, found Altman, OpenAI and its president, Greg Brockman, not liable for Elon Musk’s claims that they unjustly enriched themselves and broke a founding contract made with Musk when founding the startup.

The verdict, delivered after less than two hours of deliberation, is a stark rebuke of Musk and his lawyer’s claims that Altman “stole a charity” through his leadership of OpenAI. It also provides the AI firm with a clear path ahead to pursue going public later this year at about a $1tn valuation.

The jury’s finding is a non-binding, advisory verdict that left Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers with ultimate power to issue her own ruling in the case. Gonzalez Rogers immediately said that 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,” Gonzalez Rogers told Musk’s lawyer after the verdict.

The jury found that Musk’s lawsuit, which was filed in 2024, did not fall within the statute of limitations to bring his case. One of the key legal arguments in the trial surrounded whether the harms that Musk alleged took place – including his breach of charitable trust claim – occurred before certain dates. OpenAI argued that Musk was well aware of the company’s plans to pursue a for-profit structure as early as 2017 and therefore his case was filed outside the three-year limit.

The scene at the courthouse

After the verdict was read, the lawyers started packing up their boxes, and the courtroom emptied out. Gonzalez Rogers gave each juror a gift of a small pocket constitution that she signed, dated and wrote, “Thank you for your service”.

During a press conference in front of the courthouse, OpenAI’s lead attorney, William Savitt, said the jury took into account hundreds of pieces of evidence and listened to weeks of testimony to ultimately find Musk’s case was a “hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor”.

“Mr Musk can tell his stories,” Savitt said. “What the jury found today is just that: Stories, not facts.” He added that the jury’s verdict was “not a technical decision; it’s a substantive one”.

Musk’s attorneys Steven Molo and Marc Toberoff, meanwhile, framed the case as having proved a point and exposed OpenAI, regardless of their loss. Molo claimed that the testimony was “valuable for the world to see” and that the jury’s decision was a “technical” one.

Musk tweeted that he would would appeal the verdict.

“Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality. 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 wrote.

None of Musk, Altman or Brockman were present in court for the verdict.

The nine-person jury in Oakland began deliberating the case on Monday morning after a three-week trial that featured several of Silicon Valley’s most prominent executives taking the stand. Musk, Altman, Brockman and the Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, all gave testimony in the case, at times facing combative cross-examinations in the courtroom.

Microsoft, which Musk accused in his lawsuit of aiding and abetting Altman, was also found not liable in the jury’s verdict.

“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,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement.

A battle between two titans

The verdict caps off one of the most closely watched trials in tech, which delivered a look behind the scenes at OpenAI’s fractious history and the fight between two of the industry’s biggest names. Although a victory for Altman, the case made public many unflattering details and episodes involving both moguls.

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 roles at OpenAI, as well as the undoing of the firm’s for-profit restructuring.

At the core of the case was Musk’s allegations that Altman, Brockman and OpenAI broke a founding agreement when they restructured the company into a for-profit entity. Musk accused the defendants of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, claiming that Altman swindled him into co-founding OpenAI in 2015 as a non-profit to better humanity then later twisting it to pursue personal gain.

OpenAI rejected all of Musk’s claims and stated that he was always aware of plans to create a for-profit entity. Attorneys for the firm argued that Musk was motivated by jealousy after he made a failed attempt to take over OpenAI in 2018 and left the company shortly after. OpenAI also repeatedly stated that it is still overseen by its non-profit organization and dedicated to what it refers to as “the mission” of helping the world with its technology.

The trial brought in many current and former OpenAI executives to testify on the history of the company, as well as academic experts on non-profit law and corporate governance. Lawyers for both sides presented stacks of private texts, emails and other internal documents to build a narrative of the firm’s founding, specifically when the litigants became aware of OpenAI’s for-profit plans.

Although the jury delivered the verdict on whether there was liability in the case, Gonzalez Rogers was in charge of what remedies OpenAI would have faced if there was a favorable verdict for Musk. The remedies portion of the case, which began on Monday, was canceled as a result of the verdict.