Musk-Altman trial closes with credibility attacks, jury to decide OpenAI's fate

The third and final week of the Musk v. Altman trial concluded with blistering closing arguments that questioned the credibility of both tech titans. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was grilled on his alleged history of lying to former executives Ilya Sutskever, Mira Murati, and board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley—testimony that partly led to his brief 2023 firing. Musk's lawyer Steven Molo also highlighted Altman's personal stake in Helion Energy (one-third ownership) and his attempts to steer OpenAI toward that nuclear startup, a potential conflict of interest now under House oversight committee investigation. In a dramatic bridge metaphor, Molo asked the jury if they would cross a structure built on Altman's version of truth. Altman sat uneasily as his name was repeatedly invoked.

OpenAI's lawyer Sarah Eddy fired back, arguing Musk never cared about the nonprofit structure—only about winning. She pointed to Musk's 2017 statement that control of OpenAI should pass to his children, and noted he was absent from court (having flown to China with President Trump despite a judge's order to remain available). Eddy maintained that no promise was ever made to keep OpenAI a nonprofit, and that Musk's real motive is sabotaging a competitor to his xAI, which plans to go public via SpaceX at a $1.75 trillion valuation. Musk seeks to unwind OpenAI's 2025 restructuring into a public benefit corporation, remove Altman and Brockman, and win up to $134 billion in damages. The jury will deliver an advisory verdict next week; the judge will decide the case, with potential to block OpenAI's near-$1 trillion IPO.