Summary
NYT live-blog coverage of the May 18, 2026 federal jury verdict rejecting Elon Musk’s $150 billion lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft. The nine-member jury deliberated less than two hours in U.S. District Court in Oakland before unanimously finding that Musk had filed his suit after the relevant statutes of limitations expired. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Musk’s claims “on the spot.” Musk’s antitrust claims against Microsoft and OpenAI remain technically outstanding but the judge has signaled she finds them weak.
Key Points
- Jury composition and deliberation: 9-member jury; deliberated less than 2 hours; verdict unanimous.
- Statute-of-limitations cutoffs on the verdict form: breach of charitable trust (3-year statute, deadline Aug 5, 2021); unjust enrichment (2-year statute, deadline Aug 5, 2022); aiding-abetting breach (3-year statute, different timeline due to Microsoft being added to the suit four months after the original filing).
- Damages sought: $150B, removal of Altman from OpenAI’s board, unwinding of OpenAI’s for-profit restructuring.
- Why the suit failed on timing: Musk’s lawyers argued he became aware of the breach in fall 2022 when he read about Microsoft’s $10B investment; OpenAI’s lawyers showed Musk had pushed for OpenAI to become for-profit himself in 2017 and tried to fold it into Tesla.
- Counsel: Musk’s lead lawyers Marc Toberoff and Steven Molo; OpenAI’s lead lawyer William Savitt (Wachtell Lipton). Microsoft separately represented and joined the celebration.
- Musk reaction: not in courtroom; attacked Judge Gonzalez Rogers on X as “activist Oakland judge, who simply used the jury as a fig leaf”; announced appeal to Ninth Circuit; framed the loss as “calendar technicality” rather than merits.
- OpenAI valuation at trial: $730B; expected IPO “as soon as this year”; one of the largest in history if it occurs.
- The unresolved residue: Musk’s antitrust claims against Microsoft + OpenAI (added November 2024) were not addressed in this verdict. Judge Gonzalez Rogers told Molo the antitrust claims are “not very good claims” and “there is a lot of competition in the industry.” Judge has not dismissed them.
- Microsoft’s statement: “The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear, and we welcome the jury’s decision to dismiss these claims as untimely.”
- Outside-courthouse context: a labor group chanted against both OpenAI and Musk (“Nothing about us, without us”); STOP AI protestors present throughout trial; Catherine Bracy of EyesOnOpenAI called for CA AG Rob Bonta to revisit OpenAI’s restructuring agreement.
- Microsoft’s continuing exposure: Microsoft has access to OpenAI’s technology through 2032, remains a major shareholder, and benefits from OpenAI’s expected IPO.
Newsletter Angles
- The legal-vs-substantive gap: the jury did not decide whether OpenAI “stole a charity” — only that Musk waited too long to sue. The substantive question stays open; that’s the editorial wedge. Bracy’s “AG Bonta must revisit” statement is the live institutional thread that survives the verdict.
- IPO timing as the actual stake: the verdict removes “one of the final roadblocks” to OpenAI’s IPO this year. If the IPO is one of the largest in history, the statute-of-limitations dismissal is the procedural lever that protected the offering window. Process-as-outcome.
- The Sam Altman credibility frame: the trial succeeded as a reputational exercise even as it failed legally. Three weeks of testimony attacking Altman’s truthfulness, the New Yorker’s 16,000-word “can he be trusted” piece, Molo’s “bridge built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth” closing — Musk lost the case but tagged the credibility question to Altman’s IPO road show.
- First fully partisan committee vote angle, applied to AG approvals: California AG Rob Bonta and Delaware AG approved OpenAI’s restructuring; legal experts say Delaware would have applied a stricter corporate-law test. The verdict effectively validates a more permissive AG approval as the operative standard. Worth tracking against Florida attorney general announces criminal investigation into OpenAI which goes the other direction.
- The settled-vs-litigated frame: Tim Draper (early investor in both SpaceX and OpenAI) publicly said they should have settled. The trial’s broader cost — for both Musk’s reputation and Altman’s credibility — was self-inflicted by both sides. Worth contrasting with French Prosecutors Charges Musk X Grok — AP - 2026-05-07 where Musk’s legal exposure is rising on a different vector.
Entities Mentioned
- Elon Musk — plaintiff; lost on statute-of-limitations grounds; will appeal to Ninth Circuit
- Sam Altman — defendant; credibility attacked during three-week trial
- Greg Brockman — defendant; OpenAI president; texted by Musk pre-trial (“you and Sam will be the most hated men in America”)
- OpenAI — defendant; valuation $730B; IPO obstacle removed
- Microsoft — defendant; statement framed verdict as timing dismissal not merits exoneration
- Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers — presiding judge; “activist Oakland judge” per Musk’s X post
- Anthropic — referenced as OpenAI’s closest competitor in enterprise market
Concepts Mentioned
- Process Is the Punishment — verdict was about timing not merits; the litigation itself was the cost (3 weeks of testimony attacking both sides’ credibility)
- AI Antitrust — antitrust claims still technically alive; judge signals skepticism
Quotes
“Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality. There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!” — Musk on X, hours after verdict
“I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.” — Musk on X
“Imagine that you’re on a hike, and you come upon one of those wooden bridges that you see on a trail, and it’s over a gorge. There’s a river that’s 100 feet below, and it looks a little scary, but a woman standing by the entry to the bridge says, ‘Don’t worry, the bridge is built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth.’ Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would.” — Steven Molo (Musk’s lead lawyer), closing arguments
“I was surprised we got there.” — Dorothy Lund, Columbia Law professor on the suit reaching trial at all; said Delaware would have applied stricter test
“In light of the mounting evidence of OpenAI’s unlawful abdication of its nonprofit mission, AG Bonta must revisit his agreement with OpenAI, order an independent valuation of the nonprofit’s assets, and compel their transfer to a truly independent charitable entity.” — Catherine Bracy, EyesOnOpenAI
Notes
The NYT article is a live-blog format with multiple updates throughout the verdict day; it’s longer and more contextual than the Ars Technica coverage of the same event. Use this source for the institutional / procedural detail; pair with Musk-OpenAI Jury Verdict — Ars Technica - 2026-05-18 for the Musk-side reaction angles. Disclosure note in the article: “The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems.” Two NYT staffers (Cade Metz, Mike Isaac) co-bylined; the paper carries its own commercial conflict with the defendants.