Elon Musk's legal team concluded its case against OpenAI on Thursday, telling jurors they have demonstrated the AI company misappropriated his millions in donations and abandoned its founding commitment to develop safe, powerful artificial intelligence for the broader public good.
In closing arguments, Musk's attorney Steven Molo painted a picture of executives pursuing personal enrichment through stock grants and lucrative deals with companies in which they held financial interests. He focused heavily on the character of CEO Sam Altman, arguing that witness testimony from former employees Ilya Sutskever and Mira Murati, along with ex-board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, contradicted Altman's claims of trustworthiness.
OpenAI and Microsoft pushed back, asserting that Musk's $38 million in early donations carried no contractual restrictions and that the organization has remained faithful to its stated mission, even as its structure evolved. The defendants also argued the lawsuit arrived too late and that Musk's own conduct should disqualify him from winning relief.
Musk filed the suit in 2024 against OpenAI, Altman, and President Greg Brockman, alleging they violated fiduciary duties owed to the organization's charitable mission. He later added Microsoft to the complaint, contending the tech giant aided the alleged breach. The case has drawn testimony from major figures in artificial intelligence, including Musk, Altman, board chair Bret Taylor, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.
Among his demands, Musk seeks Altman's removal as CEO and from the board, plus billions in damages. He has stated he would return any monetary award to OpenAI's nonprofit arm.
The trial structure carries an unusual feature: any jury verdict will be advisory only, leaving the judge authority to override it. Should the verdict favor Musk, a separate phase will determine the size of any damages award.
Deliberations are expected to begin later Thursday once both sides finish their closing arguments and the judge delivers final instructions to the jury.
Author James Rodriguez: "This case hinges on whether a nonprofit can simply rebrand itself as a money-making enterprise and claim nothing has changed, and the jury's job just got a lot harder."
Comments