Elon Musk lost his lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft (MSFT) on Monday after a nine-person jury rejected his claims in under two hours.

The decision followed a three-week trial in Oakland, California, in which Elon sought to prove that OpenAI breached the purpose for which it was formed. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the advisory jury’s decision and found that neither Sam nor OpenAI was liable. She also dismissed the breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment claims since they were raised too late.

Yvonne said that she was willing to dismiss the suit “right then and there.” Yvonne further added, “there is a lot of evidence to support the jury’s decision.” Steven Molo, Elon’s main lawyer, informed the judge that Elon still had a right to appeal. Thus, while the legal battle was not entirely concluded, Monday’s ruling marked a defeat for Elon.

This ruling also put an end to the claim against Microsoft, which Elon alleged was responsible for the breach by OpenAI since Microsoft invested in OpenAI in 2019.

Jury clears Sam Altman and OpenAI after Elon fails to prove a binding nonprofit deal

Elon filed the suit against Sam and OpenAI in 2024. He claimed that OpenAI was created in 2015 as an AI lab with a charitable purpose; however, its founders switched to a business model afterward. Elon co-founded the organization in 2015 and left the board of directors in 2018. He stated in court that he invested around $38 million since he trusted that OpenAI would develop AI systems “for the benefit of humanity.” It was not meant to enrich one man.

Elon’s legal representatives claimed that Sam and Greg “stole a charity,” which is the main accusation of the lawsuit. According to the plaintiff, OpenAI’s founders abandoned the initial goal and focused on their own enrichment. Elon demanded severe legal consequences for the shift.

The amounts were huge. Elon’s attorneys requested that OpenAI and Microsoft forfeit up to $134 billion in “ill-gotten gains.” Additionally, they asked the court to exclude Sam and Greg from the leadership and roll back the restructuring that took place in 2025, which contributed to the growth of the for-profit part.

Elon insisted that the funds were not for him personally. He asked that all the recovered amounts be returned to the “OpenAI charity.”

However, the problem was the lack of evidence. Elon’s lawsuit did not mention any founding document that guaranteed the nonprofit status of OpenAI permanently. There apparently is no such document. As a result, his team was forced to construct arguments based on emails, messages, discussions, and records from OpenAI’s founding period.

It means that the whole trial depended on memories, written documents, and credibility. The jury had to determine which version of events was more persuasive in the process of forming OpenAI.

OpenAI says Elon wanted control while Microsoft and Google stayed central to the case

OpenAI’s lawyers argued that Elon’s donations were not legally restricted. Their point was that he gave money, but did not attach clear written limits to it. They also said OpenAI had to restructure because advanced AI costs serious money. The company needed cash, chips, engineers, and cloud power to compete with Google DeepMind, which sits under Alphabet (GOOGL).

OpenAI’s side also used Elon’s own history against him. They showed that Elon had discussed a for-profit setup before, but wanted control if that happened. They also said he once pushed for OpenAI to be folded into Tesla (TSLA).

Microsoft was pulled into the case because of its deep financial link with OpenAI. Elon accused Microsoft of aiding the alleged breach of charitable trust. The court dismissed that claim too.

After the ruling, lawyers for OpenAI and Microsoft hugged and slapped backs as they left the downtown Oakland courtroom. That was the courtroom mood on their side. Elon’s side kept the appeal option open.

Yvonne also dismissed two extra claims after finding they were blocked by time-limit rules. She then thanked the jury and told them they could speak to “anyone about anything.” People in the gallery laughed. She warned them that any talks had to happen at a reasonable time and place, and only with their consent.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.