Musk’s OpenAI Claims Are Dismissed, but the Federal Case Remains Open
Elon Musk’s claims against OpenAI and its leaders are no longer awaiting a verdict. On May 18, 2026, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted an advisory jury’s finding that Musk had sued too late and dismissed the claims; Musk said he would appeal in the Associated Press account of the judgment.
The wider federal action has not closed. The Northern District of California’s current case page lists an August 10, 2026 answer from Musk and X.AI Corp. to OpenAI’s counterclaim. That filing is the key to the present status: Musk’s own claims were dismissed, but litigation initiated by the opposing side remains under the same case number.
What the “gamesmanship” order actually decided
Rogers used the word “gamesmanship” in a procedural ruling, not in a judgment on whether OpenAI had betrayed its founding mission. The dispute concerned the affirmative defenses that OpenAI and the other defendants had included in their response to Musk’s allegations.
In the July 29, 2025 order granting Musk’s motion in part, Rogers recorded that the defendants had pleaded 55 affirmative defenses. Musk’s side sought to strike the entire set or, alternatively, 16 specified defenses; the judge removed those 16 while rejecting the broader demand.
The ruling faulted both camps. Rogers found that the defendants had asserted an excessive number of defenses, many of which appeared irrelevant, redundant, insufficient or immaterial, but she also concluded that Musk’s attempt to eliminate all of them overreached. Her warning about wasting judicial resources therefore addressed how the parties were litigating, rather than validating either side’s account of OpenAI’s history.
The immediate result was narrow: 39 defenses remained after the order. It was a procedural gain for Musk because the defense case became smaller, but it did not establish that a binding promise existed, that charitable assets had been misused or that any defendant had committed fraud.
The later trial turned on timing
The case advanced well beyond the 2025 dispute over pleadings. At the 2026 trial in Oakland, Musk presented OpenAI’s move away from an exclusively nonprofit structure as a breach of commitments surrounding its creation. OpenAI and the individual defendants disputed the existence and legal effect of the alleged promises.
The decisive issue was when Musk knew enough to bring his claims. After a three-week trial, a nine-person advisory jury deliberated for less than two hours and found that the applicable filing deadlines had expired. Rogers adopted that finding as the court’s own and dismissed the claims before her.
The dismissal was a trial-level victory for OpenAI, but not a merits ruling that resolved the parties’ competing narratives. Once the court determined that the claims were untimely, it did not need to decide whether OpenAI’s founders made the promises in the form Musk alleged or whether the organization’s later development violated them.
That distinction cuts both ways. The judgment does not substantiate Musk’s accusations, because he did not obtain a finding that the defendants committed the alleged wrongdoing. It also should not be described as a judicial endorsement of every decision OpenAI made: the court disposed of his requested relief through filing deadlines.
Why the docket is still active
The current docket reflects two different procedural positions within one action. Musk is no longer pursuing live affirmative claims at the district-court trial level, while OpenAI’s counterclaim continues against Musk and X.AI Corp. An active docket therefore does not mean that his dismissed allegations have silently returned.
The August answer is a responsive pleading. It records Musk and X.AI Corp.’s position against the counterclaim, but it does not decide whether OpenAI will prevail, establish liability or reverse the judgment dismissing Musk’s claims.
The remaining counterclaim could end through a later ruling, settlement or another procedural disposition. Until that occurs, calling the entire federal action finished would be inaccurate. Calling Musk’s original claims pending would be equally misleading.
How the significance of the 2025 rebuke changed
When Rogers issued her 2025 warning, the practical question was which defenses OpenAI could carry forward. The subsequent trial produced a much more consequential result: Musk’s claims failed because they were filed outside the permitted period, while the underlying institutional dispute remained unresolved on its merits.
The “gamesmanship” line still matters as a record of the judge’s frustration with both legal teams. It should not, however, be mistaken for the outcome of the case or framed as criticism directed only at Musk, Altman or OpenAI. The order criticized excessive pleading by the defendants and an overbroad response from the plaintiffs.
The present case posture is therefore narrower than the original confrontation. Musk lost the affirmative case at trial and expressed an intention to challenge that result, while the district-court docket is moving because OpenAI’s counterclaim survives. Those are separate procedural tracks, and neither one supplies the merits judgment that the original fight appeared poised to produce.
Also read:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest Web3, AI, and crypto news delivered straight to your inbox.