Closing Arguments Held in Musk Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Altman

Attorneys for Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman presented closing arguments Thursday in San Francisco federal court, capping a high-profile trial over the future of the artificial intelligence company. Musk's legal team argued that OpenAI had strayed from the nonprofit mission it was founded with in 2015, when Musk was a co-founder alongside Altman.

They portrayed Altman as untrustworthy in their presentations to the jury. For their part, attorneys for Altman and OpenAI countered that Musk's side had relied on unsubstantiated allegations throughout the proceedings. They told jurors that the case centered on contract law governing the organization's original nonprofit structure.

The trial featured testimony from an OpenAI research scientist who recalled a conversation with Musk from years earlier. According to that account, Musk had pushed for rapid advancement to outpace Google and dismissed safety concerns by calling the scientist a jackass.

" OpenAI employees later presented a trophy inscribed "Never stop being a jackass" to the researcher involved in the exchange. Before the jury entered the courtroom, Altman's team showed the trophy to the judge, who had it read aloud for reporters. The judge ruled that jurors would not see the physical object unless Musk's attorneys provided grounds to introduce it as evidence.

Musk's lawsuit contends that OpenAI breached commitments made at its founding by shifting focus toward commercial gains, including partnerships that prioritize profit. Altman’s side maintains the company has remained faithful to its core goals of developing safe artificial intelligence.

During closings, one attorney for Altman noted that Microsoft had featured little in the testimony despite its substantial investment in OpenAI. The attorney told jurors this absence undermined claims that the organization had fundamentally changed direction.

The defense also highlighted that Musk was abroad Thursday attending an event with President Trump. Closing arguments concluded with the defense expressing appreciation to the jury after weeks of proceedings. The case now rests with the jury, which must determine whether OpenAI violated any binding agreements from its early days as a nonprofit organization dedicated to benefiting humanity.

Musk helped establish OpenAI in 2015 as a counterweight to commercial AI development led by companies such as Google. He left the organization several years later and has since launched his own AI venture, xAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of abandoning its original charter by pursuing massive commercial deals, including a close relationship with Microsoft.

Musk's team presented evidence they said showed a departure from the founding principles of openness and nonprofit governance. OpenAI has countered that its structure evolved to attract the talent and capital necessary to compete in a rapidly advancing field.

The company says its mission to ensure artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity remains intact.

Witnesses described internal debates from OpenAI's early years about the pace of AI development and potential risks. One exchange highlighted differing views on whether racing to match competitors served safety objectives. The trophy incident became a point of contention in testimony.

Musk denied using the exact term attributed to him, while OpenAI presented the commemorative object as evidence of the exchange. Jurors heard limited details about Microsoft's role despite the company's multibillion-dollar investment and partnership with OpenAI.

Closing arguments emphasized this point as relevant to claims of mission drift.

With closing arguments completed, the case is now in the hands of the jury. Deliberations will determine the outcome of Musk's claims regarding OpenAI's governance and contractual obligations. The dispute has drawn attention to broader questions about how AI companies balance rapid innovation with their stated commitments to safety and public benefit.

Both sides presented the trial as central to those issues. Legal observers expect the verdict could influence ongoing debates about AI development models, though the immediate effect will be limited to the specific contract claims at issue in this case.