Musk v. Altman week 3: Elon Musk and Sam Altman traded blows over each other’s credibility. Now the jury will pick a side.
High-profile US litigation over OpenAI's structure has no immediate Australian regulatory parallel — low priority for APS readers.
Key points
- The Musk v. Altman trial entered closing arguments, with credibility and nonprofit commitments as central issues.
- Altman faced scrutiny over conflicts of interest; a US House committee and state AGs launched separate investigations.
- This is a US civil litigation item with negligible direct relevance to Australian federal AI governance.
Summary
The third week of Musk v. Altman concluded with closing arguments focused on Sam Altman's credibility and whether any binding commitments were made to keep OpenAI a nonprofit. Altman faced cross-examination over alleged dishonesty with former executives and board members, and over personal financial conflicts of interest including investments in Helion Energy. Musk was absent for closing arguments, having travelled to China with President Trump despite a judicial order to remain available. A verdict now rests with the jury.
"Musk v. Altman week 3: Elon Musk and Sam Altman traded blows over each other’s credibility. Now the jury will pick a side." Source: MIT Technology Review – AI Published: 15 May 2026 URL: https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/15/1137357/musk-v-altman-week-3/ The third week of Musk v. Altman concluded with closing arguments focused on Sam Altman's credibility and whether any binding commitments were made to keep OpenAI a nonprofit. Altman faced cross-examination over alleged dishonesty with former executives and board members, and over personal financial conflicts of interest including investments in Helion Energy. Musk was absent for closing arguments, having travelled to China with President Trump despite a judicial order to remain available. A verdict now rests with the jury. Retrieved from SIMS, 18 May 2026.