Musk v Altman et al: Difference between revisions
Add Trial Day 5: judge rebukes Toberoff |
Update Musk v Altman case page with May 18 verdict |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Status | ! Status | ||
| | | Dismissed — advisory jury found claims time-barred on May 18, 2026; Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the advisory verdict and dismissed claims against OpenAI, Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft.<ref name="ap-musk-verdict" /><ref name="cnbc-musk-verdict" /> | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
== Procedural History == | == Procedural History == | ||
* '''May 6, 2026''' — Former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati testified via video deposition that Altman sowed distrust among top executives, "creating chaos" and being deceptive with senior leaders. She warned "OpenAI was at catastrophic risk of falling apart" during the leadership turmoil. Murati acknowledged she wished Altman to continue as CEO despite her concerns. ([[News-Musk-v-Altman-Trial-Day-6-2026|Full article]]) | |||
* '''February 2023''' — Initial complaint filed in California state court | * '''February 2023''' — Initial complaint filed in California state court | ||
| Line 100: | Line 101: | ||
=== Day 4 (April 30, 2026) — $97.4B Bid Probe === | === Day 4 (April 30, 2026) — $97.4B Bid Probe === | ||
Judge '''Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers''' paused the trial to investigate the circumstances of Musk's '''$97.4 billion''' acquisition proposal for OpenAI. The probe was triggered when Musk's legal team failed to object to a document during cross-examination, inadvertently opening the door to evidence about the bid. The evidence could undermine Musk's claim that OpenAI has abandoned its nonprofit mission, as the bid itself could be seen as an attempt to acquire OpenAI for competitive advantage.<ref name="law360-bid">[https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/2375205 Law360, "OpenAI Judge Pauses Trial To Probe Musk Attys On $97B Bid," April 30, 2026]</ref> | Judge '''Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers''' paused the trial to investigate the circumstances of Musk's '''$97.4 billion''' acquisition proposal for OpenAI. The probe was triggered when Musk's legal team failed to object to a document during cross-examination, inadvertently opening the door to evidence about the bid. The evidence could undermine Musk's claim that OpenAI has abandoned its nonprofit mission, as the bid itself could be seen as an attempt to acquire OpenAI for competitive advantage.<ref name="law360-bid">[https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/2375205 Law360, "OpenAI Judge Pauses Trial To Probe Musk Attys On $97B Bid," April 30, 2026]</ref> | ||
== Verdict and dismissal == | |||
On May 18, 2026, a nine-person advisory jury found that Musk's breach-of-charitable-trust and unjust-enrichment claims were filed outside the applicable statute of limitations, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the advisory finding and dismissed the claims as untimely.<ref name="ap-musk-verdict">[https://apnews.com/article/musk-openai-trial-verdict-0b9b0bfaffe96f2c930341f52dfe4f8c AP News, "Federal court rejects Elon Musk's claims against OpenAI, saying he filed his lawsuit too late" (May 18, 2026).]</ref><ref name="cnbc-musk-verdict">[https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/18/musk-altman-openai-trial-verdict.html CNBC, "Elon Musk loses court battle against Sam Altman and OpenAI after 3-week trial" (May 18, 2026).]</ref> The verdict followed a three-week trial in Oakland, California, and CNBC reported that jurors deliberated for less than two hours before rejecting Musk's claims.<ref name="cnbc-musk-verdict" /> Ars Technica reported that Musk planned to appeal after the judge affirmed the jury's decision.<ref name="ars-musk-verdict">[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/elon-musk-loses-trial-accusing-sam-altman-openai-of-stealing-a-charity/ Ars Technica, "Elon Musk took too long to sue OpenAI, jury unanimously agrees" (May 18, 2026).]</ref> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||