A U.S. judge on Wednesday ruled that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk can take his lawsuit against OpenAI to trial, allowing a jury to hear claims that the ChatGPT maker violated its founding mission by restructuring into a for-profit entity.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, speaking at a hearing in Oakland, California, said there was “plenty of evidence” suggesting OpenAI’s leadership had assured Musk that the organization would retain its original nonprofit structure. She added that the existence of disputed facts warranted a jury trial, rather than a ruling by the court, with proceedings scheduled for March.
Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 but left in 2018, now runs rival AI startup xAI, whose chatbot Grok competes directly with OpenAI’s products. He is seeking unspecified monetary damages, alleging OpenAI generated “ill-gotten gains” through its shift to a for-profit model.
The lawsuit accuses OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of orchestrating the restructuring to enrich themselves, pointing to multibillion-dollar deals with Microsoft and a recent corporate overhaul. Musk claims he contributed about $38 million — roughly 60% of OpenAI’s early funding — along with strategic guidance, based on assurances that the organization would remain dedicated to the public good.
OpenAI, Altman, and Brockman have denied the allegations, describing Musk as a commercial rival attempting to hinder a market leader. In a statement after the hearing, OpenAI said Musk’s lawsuit was “baseless” and part of an ongoing pattern of harassment, adding it looked forward to making its case at trial.
Microsoft, which is also named as a defendant, urged the court to dismiss the claims against it, arguing there was no evidence it aided or abetted any wrongdoing. The judge said the jury would also consider whether Musk filed the lawsuit outside the applicable statute of limitations.
The case unfolds amid intensifying competition in the generative AI sector, where control, governance, and commercialization of powerful models are increasingly becoming matters of legal and public scrutiny.
