In a California courtroom, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is navigating the high-stakes legal feud between tech titans Elon Musk and Sam Altman, a clash that’s as much about egos as it is about artificial intelligence.
On Tuesday, July 29, 2025, Rogers handed Musk a partial victory by trimming OpenAI’s list of affirmative defenses from 55 to 39 in his racketeering lawsuit against Altman and the ChatGPT maker. But the judge didn’t hold back, chastising both sides for their “gamesmanship” and excessive litigation tactics that are clogging her court.
Musk’s lawsuit claims that OpenAI, which he co-founded in 2015 with a $45 million donation, betrayed its nonprofit mission to develop AI for humanity’s benefit. He accuses Altman of turning OpenAI into a for-profit giant, now valued at $300 billion, prioritizing personal gain over public good.
Musk alleges fraud, breach of contract, and antitrust violations, arguing that OpenAI’s actions — like requiring investors not to fund rivals —harm his AI venture, xAI. OpenAI counters that Musk pushed for a for-profit model in 2017, seeking control and majority equity, only to leave when his demands were unmet.
Judge Rogers, known for handling major tech disputes, made it clear she’s unimpressed with the theatrics. In her sharp two-page ruling, she struck down 16 of OpenAI’s defenses as “irrelevant, redundant, insufficient, or immaterial,” including a vague claim of Musk’s “unclean hands” that Altman’s team failed to explain.
She also criticized Musk’s lawyers for their overzealous bid to dismiss all 55 defenses, stating, “The Court will not waste precious judicial resources on the parties’ gamesmanship.” It’s hard to disagree when one side floods the court with arguments and the other demands a blanket rejection.
Rogers’ frustration echoes her February 2025 comments, when she called the case a “billionaires versus billionaires” showdown and questioned Musk’s claim of “irreparable harm.”
She noted that Musk, who raised $11 billion for xAI, hardly seems like a victim of OpenAI’s success. She also raised concerns about Musk’s decision to invest millions in OpenAI based on a “handshake” with Altman, relying on trust rather than a written contract — a risky move for such a large sum.
While Musk scored a tactical win with the trimmed defenses, Rogers denied his earlier request for a preliminary injunction to block OpenAI’s for-profit conversion, ruling that he failed to prove imminent harm. She’s now fast-tracking the case, with jury selection set for March 30, 2026, in her Oakland courtroom. The trial will focus on Musk’s core claim: that OpenAI breached its charitable mission. The outcome may depend on public perception, given Musk’s polarizing persona and Altman’s framing of OpenAI as a victim of Musk’s competitive jealousy.
This case is more than a billionaire grudge match — it raises questions about the future of AI development and who controls it. Musk positions himself as a defender of OpenAI’s original altruistic vision, while Altman argues the for-profit shift is necessary to fund the costly race for artificial general intelligence.
Emails show a 2017 power struggle where Musk sought CEO control, only to be rebuffed by co-founders wary of his influence. Meanwhile, OpenAI’s close ties to Microsoft have drawn Rogers’ scrutiny, hinting at broader antitrust issues.
Also read:
- PayPal to Launch Crypto Payment Service for U.S. Businesses
- The Mighty Are Changing Their Tune: A Shift on Bitcoin
- ChatGPT Agent Masters Cloudflare Protection: Screenshots Reveal Human-Like Behavior
As the March 2026 trial approaches, the spotlight will be on Musk’s public popularity and whether a jury buys his narrative of betrayal. For now, Judge Rogers is keeping both billionaires in check, ensuring their courtroom circus doesn’t derail the quest for justice. In a world where AI’s future is at stake, her no-nonsense approach might be the reality check Silicon Valley needs.
