Two men co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015. A decade later they are in federal court over one question: did Elon Musk's early donation legally bind OpenAI to stay a nonprofit forever?
HERO-CARD: Musk v. Altman
Lede. Musk says he was duped into bankrolling a charity that quietly became an ~$800B company; OpenAI says no such promise was ever made and Musk is a rival with regrets. As of mid-May 2026 the trial is in closing arguments in Oakland.
Musk told the jury he handed OpenAI "essentially free funding" in its earliest years — roughly
— money he says helped build a company later valued by its own president at more than $850 billion. That asymmetry is the engine of the entire case.
Charitable trust — the legal theory the whole trial turns on. Musk argues his donation created a binding obligation forcing OpenAI to remain a nonprofit serving its founding mission; OpenAI argues no enforceable promise ever existed. The jury weighs only two surviving claims, fraud and unjust enrichment — and even then only as advice.
This was never really about the money — it's about whether a donation can freeze a company's mission forever. The verdict will be loud; with an advisory jury and a judge holding the final word, it won't be the last word.
Full sourcing in 40-LAB/BREAKDOWN-musk-altman-openai-trial.md.
summary → Mini. Beats 4 (Comparison) and 5 (Counter) are deliberatelystat-callout ($38M) rather than a grid: the load-bearingdefinition over numbered-principle: the mechanism of this