Closing arguments were delivered Thursday in the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman [1, 2, 3].
The case centers on the fundamental governance of artificial intelligence and whether a company can pivot from a non-profit mission to a for-profit model. A ruling could set a legal precedent for how AI organizations manage their founding charters and public commitments.
The proceedings took place at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California [2, 4, 5]. The trial lasted three weeks [6], concluding on May 14, 2026 [5]. Presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers [5] oversaw the arguments before the case moved toward a jury decision.
Musk said that OpenAI abandoned its original non-profit mission [7]. He said that the organization shifted away from its goal of benefiting humanity to prioritize commercial interests.
OpenAI said that Musk was aware of the company's for-profit plans [7]. The organization also said that Musk filed the lawsuit too late to be legally viable [7].
A nine-person jury [1, 5] is now tasked with reviewing the evidence. The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations on Monday, May 20, 2026 [1, 2, 3].
Because the verdict is advisory [1, 5], the jury's finding will not be final. Judge Gonzalez Rogers will make the ultimate decision on liability based on the jury's recommendation [1].
“The trial lasted three weeks, concluding on May 14, 2026.”
This case represents a critical test of 'mission drift' in the tech sector. If the court finds that OpenAI breached its original non-profit agreement, it could force a restructuring of how AI labs balance commercial viability with public-interest mandates. However, because the verdict is advisory, the final outcome rests with the judge, placing the legal weight on statutory interpretation rather than just the jury's perception of the founders' intent.
