A California jury has tossed out Elon Musk's high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman. In a unanimous verdict, the case was thrown out because Musk had filed his lawsuit after a statute of limitations to bring such claims had expired. Musk had accused Altman of breaching a non-profit contract by shifting the ChatGPT-maker to a for-profit company after Musk donated $38m (£28.5m). Musk had argued Altman deceived him by accepting his money and then reneging on OpenAI's original non-profit mission to develop artificial intelligence (AI) technology for the benefit of humanity. Jurors spent three weeks viewing internal correspondence and hearing testimony, and arrived at a verdict on Monday after deliberating for roughly two hours.

After three weeks of testimony and not much deliberation, a jury has ruled against Elon Musk, finding that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were not liable in the case. The jury found that the statute of limitations had already passed when Musk sued the two executives. Musk filed his lawsuit in 2024, accusing them of stealing a charity following his departure from the AI lab in 2018. Though the jury in the case served only an advisory role, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the jury's ruling. Musk's claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment are dismissed as untimely, she said according to Though Musk could still appeal the ruling, Rogers told his lawyer she would dismiss an appeal on the spot.

Both Musk and Altman took the stand for hours, facing combative cross-examinations that painted them each as untrustworthy. Both Musk and Altman took the stand for hours, facing combative cross-examinations that painted them each as untrustworthy. Two of the world's richest people faced an airing of their dirty laundry amid their messy, bitter feud over OpenAI A nine-person jury is set to decide whether Elon Musk's allegations of "stealing a charity" against Sam Altman and OpenAI are legitimate, with deliberations to begin in earnest on Monday. Whatever its outcome, the case has been an illuminating, at times exhausting, look behind the scenes at the history of OpenAI and how some of the most powerful figures in the tech industry operate. Attorneys for both sides have introduced reams of private text messages, emails and even diary entries to support their arguments.

Elon Musk Had'Hair-Raising' Idea of Passing OpenAI Onto His Kids, Sam Altman Says Musk's lawyers questioned Altman over allegations of deception and his network of financial investments, but the OpenAI CEO painted a picture of Musk as obsessed with controlling the company. Sam Altman took to the witness stand to defend his reputation in the trial on Tuesday, as Elon Musk's lawyers peppered the OpenAI CEO with hours of questions regarding his alleged history of deceptive behavior . The cross examination was a much needed win for Musk, who has so far struggled to make a convincing case. Tuesday's testimony included several heated exchanges in which the OpenAI CEO had to respond to allegations from former colleagues suggesting he's untrustworthy . Highlighting this evidence is not only important for Musk winning over a jury, but also for beating OpenAI in the court of public opinion.

In a United States court, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has rejected claims from fellow tech mogul Elon Musk that he betrayed the artificial intelligence company's original vision. Tuesday marked the start of Altman's testimony in a contentious trial unfolding in Oakland, California, between some of tech's richest and most powerful titans. He alleged that OpenAI's leader persuaded him to invest $38bn, based on a goal of improving humanity, only to see the company pivot to a for-profit venture in 2019. On the witness stand on Tuesday, Altman instead framed Musk as a competitor obsessed with exercising control over OpenAI. "It does not fit with my conception of the words'stealing a charity' to look at what has actually happened here," Altman told the court.

Sam Altman is questioned by OpenAI's attorney, Bill Savitt, before Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a US district judge, at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California, on 12 May 2026 in a courtroom sketch. Sam Altman is questioned by OpenAI's attorney, Bill Savitt, before Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a US district judge, at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California, on 12 May 2026 in a courtroom sketch. The OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, took the stand on Tuesday to defend himself and his company against a lawsuit by Elon Musk . Altman is set to be one of the final witnesses in the trial, which has pitted two of the tech industry's most powerful men against each other in a dramatic courtroom showdown. Musk has accused Altman and OpenAI of breaking the AI firm's founding agreement by restructuring it into a for-profit enterprise, alleging that Altman essentially swindled him into co-founding the company and providing tens of millions in financial backing.

Ilya Sutskever Stands by His Role in Sam Altman's OpenAI Ouster: 'I Didn't Want It to Be Destroyed' The former OpenAI chief scientist may be estranged from the company, but he still came to its defense as he testified on Monday. Elon Musk's trial against OpenAI and Microsoft entered its final stretch on Monday, with testimony from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, and current OpenAI chairman Bret Taylor. Sutskever drew the spotlight, revealing an ownership stake in OpenAI's $850-billion for-profit arm that is currently worth about $7 billion. That makes him one of the largest known individual shareholders of OpenAI. Earlier in the trial, OpenAI president Greg Brockman acknowledged for the first time that he has around $30 billion worth of OpenAI shares .

Showdown between Musk and Altman has rendered the world's most wealthy comical under egalitarian eye of court For the past couple of weeks, on the fourth floor of a courthouse on a quiet street in downtown Oakland, the world's richest man and one of the world's most valuable startups have been at war over the future of artificial intelligence. Being one of the reporters in the room has felt like watching an updated, opposite-coast version of Tom Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities - ambition, ego, greed and the spectrum of social class on full display. The supporting cast has included Elon Musk fanboys, a stern judge and a who's-who of Silicon Valley's most influential people. All courtroom battles are theatre, but this one has proved to be a unique spectacle, with the judge chastising the lawyers for leading the witness, raising meritless objections and even too much coughing. With Musk on the stand, he griped that an opposing attorney had asked a leading question, to which the judge told him to "tell the jury you're not a lawyer".

Jonathan Ross told a federal court in December about his professional background, including "hundreds" of encounters with drivers during enforcement actions, according to testimony obtained by WIRED. Jonathan Ross, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer identified by multiple news outlets as the federal agent who shot 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday, is a veteran deportation officer in ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations division, according to sworn testimony from the federal district court in Minnesota obtained by WIRED. A member of a Special Response Team, ICE's version of a SWAT team, he's had duties as a firearms trainer and led teams drawn from multiple federal agencies including the FBI, Ross testified. The testimony stems from a December 2025 trial related to a June incident with parallels to the interaction that led to Good's killing. In June according to Ross's testimony, he led a team seeking to apprehend a man named Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala, who was on an administrative warrant for being in the United States without authorization.

This paper introduces TurnaboutLLM, a novel framework and dataset for evaluating the deductive reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by leveraging the interactive gameplay of detective games Ace Attorney and Danganronpa. The framework tasks LLMs with identifying contradictions between testimonies and evidences within long narrative contexts, a challenging task due to the large answer space and diverse reasoning types presented by its questions. We evaluate twelve state-of-the-art LLMs on the dataset, hinting at limitations of popular strategies for enhancing deductive reasoning such as extensive thinking and Chain-of-Thought prompting. The results also suggest varying effects of context size, the number of reasoning step and answer space size on model performance. Overall, TurnaboutLLM presents a substantial challenge for LLMs' deductive reasoning abilities in complex, narrative-rich environments.