May 14, 2026
Responding to the closing remarks of Elon Musk’s attorney on Thursday, OpenAI’s attorney, Sarah Eddy, fired back with her own closing arguments. The general tone of her delivery was less accusatory and didn’t appeal to emotion. Instead, Eddy framed her entire argument on corporate paperwork evidence, witness testimony, and simple logic.
However, OpenAI’s closing reached a fairly dramatic moment when Eddy asserted, “Elon Musk was demanding unilateral control [of OpenAI]… He wanted to dominate,” said Eddy. “He never cared about the non-profit structure, or about open sourcing [AI]. What he cared about was winning.”
Eddy’s argument framed Musk as disingenuous and focused on total control of potential AGI (artificial general intelligence) rather than an altruistic and safety-focused humanitarian effort to donate to AI research.
The jury has, as usual in such cases, been instructed to focus on evidence, not emotion. But that’s the risk when cases move past potential settlements and transition into jury trials. The human element and potential emotional response to testimony and evidence can sometimes sway a verdict toward a result that isn’t strictly based on contracts and legal logic. After the closing arguments, the AI world will get to watch and wait to see if Sam Altman and OpenAI suffer a massive financial blow (Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages) or if Musk will be rebuked and left to compete via his xAI startup without an influx of judiciary-fueled funding.
OpenAI isn’t done making its case, as Eddy’s co-counsel is currently making a final closing statement today, presenting additional facts in the case.
UPDATE: OpenAI attorney on Elon Musk trying to build AGI at Tesla: “It was a total fail.”
