A decade-long Silicon Valley dispute has reached the courtroom, with a single lawsuit poised to impact the global AI industry's structure and the fate of two monumental initial public offering plans. On April 27, Beijing time, the case of Musk versus OpenAI officially entered the jury selection phase in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Opening statements are expected to begin on Tuesday. The presiding judge is Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, and the trial is anticipated to last until mid-May.
The plaintiff, Elon Musk, has accused OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman, and Microsoft of fraudulent conduct during OpenAI's transition from a non-profit entity to a for-profit corporation. The defendants have countered, stating that Musk left voluntarily and had himself sought commercial control over OpenAI. The outcome of this case will directly affect two highly anticipated IPO plans. A victory for Musk could lead the court to potentially overturn OpenAI's shift to a for-profit structure, significantly disrupting its IPO process, which is currently valued at $852 billion and originally scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026. Should OpenAI prevail, the company would clear its most significant legal hurdle to going public, potentially setting the stage for a race with Musk's SpaceX for the title of the largest IPO in history. Prediction markets currently indicate an uncertain outcome—on the Polymarket platform, the probability of a Musk victory was recently 49%, while on Kalshi it stands at approximately 45%.
The origins of the case trace back to 2015. Musk, concerned about Google's dominance in the AI field, co-founded OpenAI with Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Ilya Sutskever, and others. The organization was established as a non-profit research entity with a mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. According to the complaint, Musk contributed approximately $38 to $44 million in seed funding, with the explicit condition that OpenAI would not pursue commercial profits.
In 2018, Musk left the board due to strategic differences. In 2019, OpenAI established a capped-profit subsidiary, which subsequently received billions of dollars in funding from Microsoft. With the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, OpenAI became a global phenomenon. In October 2025, OpenAI formally completed its transition to a public benefit corporation (PBC), with Microsoft holding a 27% stake and the OpenAI Foundation receiving equity valuing the company at approximately $130 billion.
In November 2024, Musk formally filed the lawsuit. The core allegation is that Altman and Brockman deliberately concealed their true intentions, securing his support under false pretenses, and excluded him from the transition to a for-profit model.
The scope of the trial has been significantly narrowed. Of the 26 original claims, only two will proceed to the jury: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Claims including breach of contract, RICO racketeering, false advertising, and antitrust violations were dismissed by Judge Gonzalez Rogers, with punitive damages also being excluded in late March.
Notably, just three days before the trial—on April 24—Musk voluntarily withdrew the fraud allegation. This move is interpreted by observers as a strategic adjustment to focus the jury's attention on the central question: whether charitable assets were illegally converted for profit. Musk also refined his demands: he requested that any monetary damages be paid directly to the OpenAI Foundation rather than to himself. He is also seeking the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership, the severance of OpenAI's ties with Microsoft, and the restoration of the company to a purely charitable foundation structure. This positions Musk before the jury as a guardian of the original mission, rather than a litigant seeking personal gain.
A key piece of evidence for the plaintiff is the personal diary of Greg Brockman. The OpenAI president reportedly maintained these entries under the assumption they would remain private, detailing internal strategic thoughts. Relevant excerpts have been unsealed by the court and will be presented during the trial. One cited passage states: "Our plan: if only we could make that money. We've been thinking, maybe we should just switch to for-profit." An earlier diary entry reads: "Transitioning the non-profit to a PBC without Musk's involvement would be quite unethical." This step was ultimately taken without Musk. Musk's legal team argues this demonstrates the defendants proceeded with the transition despite knowing the ethical concerns. Additionally, unsealed text messages between Altman and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, along with emails with other tech figures, are said to collectively depict a long-planned commercial transformation.
OpenAI's defense rests on three core counterarguments. First, that Musk himself sought commercialization but demanded sole control. OpenAI claims that in September 2017, Musk demanded absolute control over a potential for-profit OpenAI, citing the need for funds to support his approximately $80 billion Mars colonization plan. When other co-founders refused to merge OpenAI into his Mars project, Musk reportedly walked away. A proposal to merge OpenAI with Tesla Motors to power its Autopilot and Optimus robots was also allegedly rejected. Second, OpenAI points to a 2018 email from Musk where he wrote that OpenAI's chance of success was "zero," or even less than one percent, adding that while he wished the project well, he did not believe it would succeed. OpenAI contends this shows Musk left voluntarily and only asserted his claims retrospectively after ChatGPT's success. Third, the defense argues the lawsuit is a strategic move by Musk to apply pressure for his own AI startup, xAI. OpenAI also raises a statute of limitations defense. If the jury finds Musk missed the two-to-four-year filing window, Judge Gonzalez Rogers could rule in OpenAI's favor. Musk's team counters with a "continuing wrong" theory, arguing that each deviation from the non-profit structure reset the clock.
The fate of the IPOs hangs in the balance. Based on available information, three scenarios appear plausible. Scenario one is a pre-verdict settlement. Analysts see a realistic possibility of an out-of-court agreement. Musk could frame symbolic concessions—such as donations to the foundation or governance reforms—as a victory, while OpenAI could avoid reputational damage and legal uncertainty before its IPO. Scenario two is a partial victory for Musk. The jury could find unjust enrichment occurred, leading Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order structural adjustments—such as increasing the non-profit's stake or strengthening the foundation's mission constraints. OpenAI's IPO would likely be delayed but not terminated. Scenario three is a complete victory for OpenAI. The jury accepts that Musk left voluntarily, is making retrospective claims, and missed the statute of limitations, thereby clearing all obstacles for a potential trillion-dollar IPO. The most dramatic, yet least probable, outcome is a full victory for Musk—the for-profit structure is completely reversed, Altman is removed, and ties with Microsoft are severed. This scenario would send shockwaves through the entire AI industry; the mere risk of disruption to API services could impact thousands of businesses built on OpenAI's infrastructure.
The witness list reads like a who's who of the AI world. Each side has approximately 20 hours for presentation, with Microsoft allotted an additional 5 hours. The jury consists of nine members with no alternates. Witnesses expected to testify include Musk himself (potentially as early as Tuesday), Altman, Brockman, Nadella, and OpenAI co-founder and former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. It is important to note that the jury's verdict is advisory in this case. The final ruling—including any orders for structural remedies—will be made by Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who previously presided over the Epic Games v. Apple antitrust trial.
Comments