Author: Ada, Shenchao TechFlow
May 18, 2026, is the date of the final trial in Musk's century-long lawsuit against OpenAI.
Nine jurors began deliberations at 8:30 a.m. Less than two hours later, they unanimously ruled that all of Musk’s claims were time-barred and dismissed them in their entirety.
The court clerk handed the note to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. She accepted the jury’s verdict in court and added, “There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination, which is why I am prepared to dismiss it immediately.”
At the moment the ruling was delivered, the court’s ongoing hearing on the amount of compensation was immediately halted. No one had any further interest in calculating this figure.
$134 billion, ousting Altman, dismantling OpenAI's for-profit entity—all vanished into thin air.
On that day, Musk himself was not even in court—he missed the closing arguments on May 14, as he traveled to Beijing with Trump’s delegation, which seemed more important.
A lawsuit with a countdown that begins from the moment it is filed
According to TechCrunch, throughout the entire trial, the jury never evaluated whether Musk’s claims were valid—they only decided one thing: you were late.
What does "arriving too late" mean?
OpenAI’s defense logic is straightforward and blunt: Even if your claims of “breach of charitable trust” or “unjust enrichment” were true, they would have occurred before 2021. You filed suit in 2024—beyond the three-year statute of limitations.
The jury unanimously accepted this explanation with nine votes.
None of the jurors accepted Musk’s “delayed discovery” argument—that is, no one believed he only later found out what OpenAI had done.
During the evaluation of Musk’s claimed damages, the judge directly told Musk’s expert witness, Dr. Paul Vazan: “Your analysis appears to have no connection to the basic facts.”
This kind of public rebuttal in court hasn’t been seen in federal court for a long time. The judge’s point is clear: your claim’s logic is entirely baseless and disconnected from the facts below.
In response, Musk posted a tweet on X implying that, for those closely following the case, there is no doubt that Altman and OpenAI co-founder Brockman enriched themselves by stealing from a charity. The only question is when they did it.
In plain terms, I didn't lose anything real—I just lost on the calendar.
OpenAI’s chief counsel, William Savitt, countered: “This is a substantive decision. You filed your lawsuit too late, and you did so because you were waiting to use it as a weapon against a competitor you couldn’t beat in the market.”
The "Rashomon" on the courtroom bench
Three weeks of trial were far more interesting than Musk’s own legal claims.
The first contrast comes from Ilya Sutskever.
This former chief scientist of OpenAI was one of the masterminds behind the November 2023 failed attempt to remove Altman. He testified in court that he had spent months gathering evidence of Altman’s consistent deception; later, he changed his position, saying he regretted pushing for Altman’s reinstatement.
This testimony is not beneficial for either party.
The second contrast comes from Ultraman himself.
Ultraman admitted during cross-examination that he “sometimes told lies.” Meanwhile, five witnesses described him as “dishonest” during the trial.
In the context of traditional corporate governance, this testimony would be enough to force a CEO to resign. But in the reality of the AI industry in 2026, nothing happened. OpenAI’s valuation continues to rise, its IPO is still being prepared, and Altman remains in his position.
The third contrast is the most subtle.
OpenAI summoned Isha Datar to testify. This Neuralink executive is also the mother of Musk’s four children. However, her testimony did not corroborate Musk’s claims about OpenAI’s founding commitments.
This is a classic character assassination strategy. Legally, what she said doesn’t matter—what matters is that the jury saw a image: even a woman who has four children with you won’t stand by your side.
Elon Musk testified in court that he initially contributed approximately $38 million to OpenAI. However, OpenAI’s attorney, Sarah Edie, emphasized during closing arguments that this money came “with no conditions attached,” meaning Musk “did not establish an enforceable charitable trust.”
The real winners are not in court.
At the moment the jury reached its verdict on May 18, OpenAI's valuation stood at $852 billion, with the company racing toward its IPO in Q4 2026.
If Musk wins this lawsuit, it would mean overturning OpenAI’s PBC (Public Benefit Corporation) structure, which is the legal basis for its potential IPO.
But OpenAI won the case, not only securing the lawsuit but also eliminating, at the final stage of its IPO, the greatest legal uncertainty—the potential risk of restructuring—from the table.
PitchBook analyst Harrison Rolfes previously wrote in a report that, even without Musk’s lawsuit, OpenAI’s planned Q4 2026 IPO timeline was “overly aggressive,” with the actual window likely delayed to mid-to-late 2027.
There are three reasons. First, the company is still incurring massive losses, with an expected loss of $14 billion in 2026 and cash burn of approximately $17 billion. Second, Congress is still investigating allegations of conflicts of interest involving Altman. Third, more than 600 current and former OpenAI employees have cashed out $6.6 billion on the secondary market before October 2025, with around 75 key members withdrawing up to $30 million each.
The bids in each round of OpenAI’s internal tender have been rising. But when you look at the rate and scale at which core employees are cashing out, it feels more like they’re running. These two things aren’t contradictory—valuation is the story told to the market; cashing out is the truth told to oneself.
What about Ultraman himself?
An counterintuitive fact is that under OpenAI’s restructured equity ownership, Altman holds “TBD” (to be determined) shares—he currently owns zero percent of the company, which could one day be worth trillions.
Market analysts interpret that if Altman wins the legal dispute with Musk, he will receive an equity grant.
At 10:23 AM on May 18, after the note was delivered to the judge, the largest legal obstacle to Altman’s equity puzzle was removed.
This lawsuit was never about "right or wrong."
Return to that most fundamental question.
Does Musk really believe he can win?
According to Tradingkey's analysis, Musk chose to file the lawsuit during OpenAI's IPO window to exploit legal uncertainty and disrupt OpenAI's listing timeline.
If this analysis holds, then the $13.4 billion claim was never the real target.
The only real goal is to delay.
Each additional quarter delayed increases the uncertainty around OpenAI’s IPO and enhances the relative value of his own xAI.
OpenAI's lawyers argued in court that the repeated use of the same narrative frames this lawsuit as a "legal strike by a competitor unable to prevail in the market."
Perhaps Musk himself knows that he never intended to win from the start; his goal was to exploit this legal tool.
This time, even the court refused to let him gain two additional months. A nine-member jury deliberated for less than two hours and reached a unanimous 9-0 verdict. At the Oakland federal court, no one was willing to play along with Musk’s legal maneuvering.
What you missed is time.
Let’s walk through this timeline.
In 2015, Musk and Altman co-founded a nonprofit AI laboratory.
In 2018, Musk left the board.
In 2019, OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary.
In 2023, Musk founded his own competitor, xAI.
In 2024, Musk sued Altman and OpenAI.
In October 2025, OpenAI completed its PBC restructuring, with the original nonprofit entity retaining approximately 26% equity and Microsoft holding approximately 27%.
On May 18, 2026, Musk lost this lawsuit.
OpenAI’s lawyers presented in court that Musk himself proposed early on converting OpenAI into a for-profit structure, provided he retained control, and even pushed for the company to be merged into Tesla.
In other words, the person who first proposed the idea of “turning charity into business” may have been himself.
He just wasn't included at the time.
This is a lawsuit about missing the early bus. Musk missed it, and all that remains is how to tell a story that isn’t too embarrassing.
El equipo legal de Musk reserves the right to appeal. Judge Gonzales Rogers directly expressed her stance on the appeal: “There is substantial evidence supporting the jury’s findings.”
It's clear enough—feel free to appeal, but you won't win.
Return to OpenAI's IPO roadmap.
OpenAI still aims for a Q4 2026 IPO, but analysis firms like PitchBook believe the timeline is more likely to be delayed to 2027, given the company’s cost structure and $1.15 trillion in long-term infrastructure commitments.
$115 billion in commitments, corresponding to a company projected to lose $1.4 billion and burn $1.7 billion in cash by 2026.
This is the real problem OpenAI needs to solve.
But Musk's lawsuit has always been just an appetizer.