Lawyers for Elon Musk and Sam Altman delivered closing arguments Thursday, May 14, 2026 [1], in the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California [1].
The case centers on whether OpenAI breached its founding contract by shifting from a non-profit mission to a commercial entity. The outcome could redefine how artificial intelligence companies balance public benefit with private profit, and corporate governance.
Musk's legal team focused their final arguments on the character and transparency of OpenAI leadership. The lead attorney for Musk said Sam Altman is not trustworthy and has repeatedly misled investors about the safety of OpenAI’s technology [3]. Another attorney for Musk said Altman is a prolific liar who has concealed the true state of OpenAI’s internal governance [4].
These allegations are tied to Musk's broader claim that the company abandoned its original goal of developing safe AI for the benefit of humanity. The lawsuit seeks to hold the organization accountable for alleged contract breaches and questions the safety of its current systems [2].
Attorneys for Sam Altman and OpenAI defended the company's leadership and trajectory. They said the claims brought by Musk are unfounded and argued that the litigation aims to stifle competition in the AI sector [2].
Legal observers noted the high stakes of the proceedings. Jessica Levinson, a CBS News legal contributor, said the trial is about protecting the future of AI and ensuring OpenAI lives up to its promises to the public [5].
The court will now deliberate on the arguments presented by both sides. The final ruling will determine if OpenAI's transition to a commercial model violates the agreements made during its inception.
“"Sam Altman is not trustworthy and has repeatedly misled investors about the safety of OpenAI’s technology."”
This legal clash represents a fundamental conflict between the 'open' ethos of early AI research and the commercial realities of scaling large language models. If the court finds that OpenAI breached its founding principles, it could set a precedent for how non-profit governance is maintained when a company achieves massive market valuation, potentially forcing a restructuring of AI leadership across the industry.
