OpenAI's roughly $1 trillion initial public offering now represents a question for twelve jurors in Oakland, California. They begin deliberating on Monday.
What the case actually argues
Elon Musk's complaint, filed in 2024 and amended through 2025, says that Sam Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman broke a foundational promise: that OpenAI would remain a nonprofit dedicated to safe AI development. Instead, the suit argues, Altman and Brockman created a for-profit subsidiary that enriched them personally, and then converted that subsidiary into a public benefit corporation in 2025.
Musk wants three things. First, the 2025 restructuring unwound. Second, Altman and Brockman removed from leadership. Third, up to $134 billion in damages awarded to the original OpenAI nonprofit. The jury's verdict is advisory — non-binding on the judge — but the optics of an unfavourable advisory verdict would, by every reading of recent securities-litigation precedent, complicate any IPO filing.
💡TK's take
The legal merits are one story. The governance story is the one I find harder to look away from. OpenAI's 2025 restructuring is the single largest experiment in mission-vs-money the AI industry has ever run. Whatever twelve people in Oakland decide, the question of who controls a $1tn frontier lab — and on what terms — is now a question the public courts get to weigh.
The week three testimony
According to MIT Technology Review's coverage, Altman testified that Musk had at one point suggested control of OpenAI should "pass to my children" if he died, painting Musk as power-obsessed. Musk's lawyers, in turn, grilled Altman on what they framed as a history of self-dealing — including his personal stake in Helion Energy, the nuclear fusion company that has commercial relationships with OpenAI.
The most-quoted exhibit from the week was a golden donkey trophy inscribed "Never stop being a jackass for safety". The trophy had been given to an OpenAI employee who, the testimony showed, had opposed Musk's aggressive AGI timelines back when Musk was still on the board. The BBC's Sam Altman jury testimony coverage captured the back-and-forth in detail.
Musk himself was absent from closing arguments. According to the MIT Technology Review report, he had flown to China with President Trump — despite a judicial order to remain available. That absence will not move the jury on the merits. It will be remembered.
Never stop being a jackass for safety.
— Inscription on a golden donkey trophy presented as evidence in Musk v. Altman week 3 — reported by MIT Technology Review
What is at stake commercially
The number to anchor on is $1 trillion. That is the valuation OpenAI has been working toward for its planned public offering — a figure the FT and others have used as the working assumption since late 2025. Against that, Musk's xAI is reportedly targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation via a SpaceX-linked structure. The market is now valuing two AI companies more highly than any of the listed cloud providers that host them.
Separately, OpenAI is reported by the FT to be considering legal action against Apple over the iPhone AI deal, alleging that Apple has not invested sufficiently in the partnership. That is a different fight, but the underlying logic is the same: OpenAI is, in 2026, behaving as a company whose pre-IPO leverage is at its peak. Every contract is being re-priced.
💡TK's take
A jury in Oakland is now the single biggest variable in the most-watched IPO of the decade. The lesson for any founder reading along: the governance choices you make at year three become the courtroom exhibits at year ten. OpenAI's 2019 capped-profit structure was a clever finance answer; it has turned into a hard-to-defend governance answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
These are the questions readers have been asking since closing arguments wrapped. Short answers follow, drawn from the FT's reporting, the MIT Technology Review week-three recap, and the BBC's trial coverage.
What is Musk v. Altman about?
In short, Musk v. Altman is a breach-of-contract case over OpenAI's for-profit conversion. The answer, simply put, is that Musk argues OpenAI broke the original nonprofit mission. The key is that Musk wants the 2025 restructuring unwound and $134 billion in damages.
How does the jury's advisory verdict matter if it is non-binding?
The data shows advisory verdicts in federal civil cases carry strong persuasive weight with the presiding judge. Research from the Federal Judicial Center reveals judges rarely depart materially from a jury's advisory finding. According to the FT, an unfavourable verdict would materially complicate OpenAI's IPO filing window.
Why is OpenAI valued at roughly $1 trillion?
OpenAI revenue figures and projected enterprise contracts justify the working IPO valuation. According to consensus analyst commentary, OpenAI's 2026 annualised revenue puts it among the top five fastest-growing enterprise software companies in history. The answer is that the market is pricing OpenAI as the dominant frontier-model platform of the decade.
Who is presiding over the trial?
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presides. The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, in the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland. In other words, one federal judge and twelve jurors hold the procedural keys to the most-watched corporate trial of the year.
What are the real risks for OpenAI if the verdict goes Musk's way?
Analysis of comparable governance-led restructurings demonstrates three durable risks. First, the SEC may require disclosure-heavy amendments to any S-1 filing. Second, evidence from prior post-verdict cases reveals investor demand can soften by 20 to 40 per cent. Third, the 2025 restructuring itself could be reopened. Each risk is structural, not theatrical.
Sources
