Body
A nine‑person federal jury in Oakland, California, found on May 19 that Elon Musk missed a statutory deadline for his lawsuit against OpenAI, effectively dismissing the case and sparing the ChatGPT maker a potentially massive financial loss. The jury deliberated less than two hours before delivering the verdict, which hinged on a technical filing deadline rather than the substantive claims Musk raised.
Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute, said the trial highlighted “how much the future of AI still depends on a remarkably small group of powerful tech figures and their personal rivalries.” Her assessment points to the broader governance challenges surrounding artificial‑intelligence development, where a handful of billionaire founders wield outsized influence.
Outside the federal courthouse, demonstrators waved signs warning that “the real losers are regular people whose lives are being upended by an industry controlled by out‑of‑touch billionaires.” The protests reflected growing public anxiety about AI’s impact on jobs, mental health, and even existential risks.
Elon Musk responded on his social‑media platform X, stating he will appeal the decision. He described Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a “terrible activist Oakland judge, who simply used the jury as a fig leaf” and accused her of handing out “a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years.” Musk’s remarks underscored his ongoing contention that the lawsuit was improperly dismissed.
The trial also exposed internal friction within OpenAI. Former board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley testified that they had concerns about Sam Altman’s truthfulness, citing emails and diary entries presented as evidence. Their statements suggested a “messy” governance environment and raised questions about how OpenAI’s leadership navigates its mission to develop AI responsibly.
Both OpenAI and Musk emerged with reputational hits. OpenAI avoided immediate legal penalties but faces scrutiny over its corporate governance and the transparency of its decision‑making. Musk, meanwhile, secured a procedural victory but now faces an appeal and continued public criticism over his approach to AI competition. The case, set against a backdrop of looming AI‑related risks, illustrates the high‑stakes arena in which today’s tech titans operate.