The biggest trial over artificial intelligence of the century has ended quietly, with very little fanfare. Elon Musk lost, and OpenAI won easily. Above all, because the jury found Musk’s lawsuit had been filed too late. It was barred by the statute of limitations. Neither the jury nor the judge went on to assess Musk’s complaint. It’s as if the World Cup final never gets played because one team can’t show up: someone is declared the winner, but no one knows whether they actually deserved it. These are the key takeaways:
1. A simple ‘calendar technicality’
That’s how Musk described it, but filing the case so late is also on him. Musk sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s co‑founders, accusing them of abandoning the non‑profit they created — partly with Musk’s own donations — to turn it into a regular company. In doing so, Musk argued, they betrayed the original mission: building AI for the benefit of humanity, one that won’t “kill us all,” as he put it during the trial. And, on top of that, they became billionaires at his expense.
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…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
OpenAI countered that Musk himself had floated the idea of turning the organization into a company in those early years. They also argued that Musk filed the lawsuit now because ChatGPT is a success — and a victory would have hobbled one of the main competitors to his own AI venture, xAI.
In the end, that “technicality” is something more: both the jury and the judge essentially told Musk that if he was so worried about humanity, he could have sued earlier.
2. Has Sam Altman won?
The short answer is yes. OpenAI will remain the market leader with ChatGPT; it plans to go public this year, and for now, it won’t have to worry about Musk. But the optics of the trial were not good. Musk hammered again and again on how Altman and Brockman enriched themselves. The gossip that surfaced painted them as ordinary humans locked in endless power struggles — like kids with an enormous toy in their hands. Altman had hoped to cultivate the image of a saintly, peace‑making figure in AI. He will now look more like an AI tycoon. Meanwhile, Anthropic and Google continue to eat into OpenAI’s market share and headline space.
3. This isn’t over
Outside the federal courthouse in Oakland, where the three-week trial took place, Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, had a “one-word reaction” to the verdict: “Appeal.” “This war is not over. We firmly believe what happened with OpenAI was wrong on a very basic level that you can’t raise millions of dollars in a publicly subsidized charity, and when it suits you, just turn into a for-profit operation where the officers and directors of the charity enrich themselves to the tune of billions,” Toberoff said.
4. The big question remains unresolved
There is something the trial did not resolve: were OpenAI’s actions actually allowed? Can a non‑profit turn itself into a for‑profit company without consequences? In the absence of a clear ruling, some Musk supporters were already suggesting that from now on, anyone could set up a non‑profit, keep all the benefits, and then jump into making huge profits.
5. Another underlying problem
AI is one of the great debates of our time: it is already affecting jobs, universities, hospitals, and courts. Even the youngest generations, who in theory should benefit most, are not convinced.
No one knows what the ultimate impact will be, whether it will be good or bad. But if the central debate about AI shifts from how it will cure cancer and solve the energy crisis to who will end up making the most money or capturing the most market share, there will be a great deal to lose.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
