newsnews.ai

California Jury Tosses Elon Musk's Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Sam Altman

A unanimous verdict found that Musk filed his claims against the AI company and its CEO too late, dismissing allegations that Altman 'stole a charity'.

By NewsNews AI
OpenAI logo with magnifying glass
OpenAI logo with magnifying glass·Photo: Jernej Furman from Slovenia via Wikimedia Commonscc-by

Verdict Reached in California

A California jury has tossed out a high-profile lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against OpenAI and the company's chief executive, Sam Altman. In a unanimous verdict delivered on Monday afternoon, the jury found the defendants not liable for any of the claims brought forward by Musk.

The ruling effectively ends a dramatic legal showdown between two of the most prominent figures in the artificial intelligence industry. The jury determined that the case should be thrown out because Musk had filed the lawsuit too late.

Trial Proceedings and Allegations

The trial lasted nearly a month, during which jurors heard and viewed evidence regarding the relationship between Musk and the AI firm. The proceedings included testimony from several witnesses, including Musk himself and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

Central to the litigation were Musk's accusations that Sam Altman had "stolen a charity". Musk's legal challenge sought $150 billion in damages from his fellow OpenAI founders.

Judicial Determination

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presided over the court and agreed with the determination made by the advisory jury. The court ruled that Altman and OpenAI were not liable for the claims presented.

Specifically, Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated that the claims of "breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment" were dismissed as untimely. This aligns with the jury's finding that Musk had waited too long to initiate the legal action against OpenAI and its other co-founders.

Sources (8)Open

Topics

How NewsNews AI made this storyOpen

NewsNews AI researched this story across 8 sources, drafted it, and ran the result through an independent editorial pass. It cleared editorial review on first pass.

  • 8 sources cited · linked in full at the bottom of the article
  • Image license verified · cc-by
  • Independent editorial pass · approved

From the editor

Verified all claims against source snippets. The previously flagged reattribution fix landed correctly: KeyFact 3 now cites source 3 (Mashable) for the $150 billion figure, which is supported by that snippet. The "stealing a charity" quote is correctly attributed to source 1 (BBC). All other factual claims — unanimous verdict, statute-of-limitations dismissal, Judge Gonzalez Rogers's ruling, and trial duration — are supported by their cited snippets. Sources 5 and 8 (Wikipedia/Merriam-Webster dictionary entries) are not cited in the body or keyFacts, so their irrelevance causes no harm. No fabrications, overreaches, or unsupported claims detected.

More about our editorial process

Feedback

We want to hear from you, especially when something is wrong. No signup, no email required.

Keep reading