Briefly
U.S. district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers questioned the methodology for calculating damages in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for more than $134 billion, but did not strike expert testimony supporting that amount from the case. This was reported by the Financial Times.
Court’s position
At a pretrial hearing the judge expressed skepticism about the precision of the calculations, but decided to leave the question of fact to the jury. That means the final decision will depend not only on the parties’ legal arguments but also on how the evidence is perceived by local jurors.
"Jurors will understand that [Musk’s expert] pulls these numbers out of thin air. Do I find them convincing? Not really."
— Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, U.S. district judge
About the lawsuit
Musk claims that OpenAI and its leadership misled him by abandoning the original non‑profit model after his investments. According to an expert’s calculations, Musk’s early contributions amounted to about $38 million, and his intangible contribution could allegedly equal 50–75% of the value of the non‑profit entity that owns more than a quarter of OpenAI’s commercial business; that business has recently been valued at roughly $730 billion.
OpenAI’s response
The company calls the lawsuit commercially motivated and part of pressure on its leadership.
"The lawsuit is commercially motivated and is part of a long‑running campaign of pressure on the company."
— OpenAI spokesperson
Why this matters
This case is not only a private dispute between a founder and a company. It calls into question approaches to valuing founders’ contributions, methods for determining intangible value, and the practice of turning highly specialized financial assessments into matters for juries. The ruling will have consequences for investors, the startup ecosystem, and regulatory approaches to AI — areas that are critical both for the economic resilience and the technological security of Ukraine.
What’s next
The trial is scheduled to begin on April 28. If jurors find Musk’s arguments persuasive, it could force the market to count "undervalued" founder contributions differently and influence corporate governance standards in the AI sector. Conversely, rejection of Musk’s claims would strengthen companies’ defenses of transformational business models against similar suits.
Summary
The judge was harsh toward the expert assessment but gave the case a path to the jury. That means the fate of the multibillion‑dollar claim will be decided not only by technical jurisprudence but also by public perception of the arguments. A question for the reader: will this process change the rules of the game for startups and investors in critical technologies, on which both our country’s defense and economic resilience depend?
