x.com/elonmusk/status/2056474896641782077
1 correction found
the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
This overstates what happened. The May 18, 2026 verdict was based on timeliness, but the court had already made merits rulings earlier in the case, including dismissing Musk’s fraud claims and granting Microsoft summary judgment on two claims.
Full reasoning
The statement says the court "never actually ruled on the merits". That is not accurate.
Before the May 18, 2026 statute-of-limitations verdict, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had already made substantive merits rulings in the case:
- On April 24, 2026, Reuters reported that Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Musk's fraud claims while allowing only the breach-of-charitable-trust and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed to trial.
- In the court's January 15, 2026 summary-judgment order (Document 390), the court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment on Musk's unjust enrichment and tortious interference with contract claims. That is a merits ruling on those claims.
So although the final May 18 verdict turned on the statute of limitations, it is false to say the judge and jury never ruled on the merits at all. The case had already been narrowed by earlier merits decisions from the court.
3 sources
- US judge dismisses Musk's fraud claims in OpenAI case, plans to proceed to trial | MarketScreener (Reuters)
April 24 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday dismissed Elon Musk's fraud claims in his lawsuit accusing OpenAI and co-founder Sam Altman of betraying OpenAI's original mission, but plans to proceed to trial on Musk's breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment claims.
- Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Document 390 Filed 01/15/26
The Court DENIES OpenAI defendants’ motion for summary judgment ... Microsoft separately moves for summary judgment ... • Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Count IV (unjust enrichment) and V (tortious interference with contract) and DENIED as to Count XIX (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty).
- MUSK v. ALTMAN (2026) | FindLaw
Microsoft's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Count IV (unjust enrichment) and V (tortious interference with contract) and DENIED as to Count XIX (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty).