The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →OpenAI’s April 9, 2025 filing was a set of counterclaims inside Elon Musk’s existing federal lawsuit, not a separate lawsuit. OpenAI alleged that Musk used public attacks, legal demands, litigation and a bid for its nonprofit assets to obstruct its proposed restructuring and aid his competing company, xAI. It asked for an injunction against specific unlawful conduct and for damages.
On May 18, 2026, a federal jury rejected Musk’s claims after finding that he had waited too long to bring them. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the result and dismissed those claims. That ruling does not, by itself, establish that OpenAI won every counterclaim or that all of its allegations were proven.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What OpenAI filed on April 9, 2025
OpenAI and related defendants filed counterclaims in Musk v. Altman, case 24-cv-04722-YGR in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The filing responded to Musk’s claims that OpenAI and its leaders had violated obligations tied to the organization’s founding mission and charitable purpose. The docket identifies the proceeding as an existing federal case, not a newly filed standalone action (court docket).
OpenAI’s counterclaims alleged unfair competition and interference with its business relationships, among other theories. It asked the court for:
#1 Best Overall
- An injunction barring further conduct that OpenAI characterized as unlawful and unfair;
- Damages for the harm it said Musk’s conduct caused; and
- Other legal or equitable relief connected to the alleged interference and competition.
The filing did not automatically give OpenAI an injunction. It asked the court to order Musk to stop legally actionable conduct after applying the standards for injunctive relief. The request was not necessarily a demand to prohibit all criticism or public discussion of OpenAI (TechCrunch; Reuters via Investing.com).
What “enjoined” means
To enjoin someone is to ask a court for an injunction: an order requiring or prohibiting specified conduct. There are three different procedural ideas to keep separate:
- Requested relief: what OpenAI asked the judge to order in its counterclaims.
- Interim relief: a temporary order while the case is pending.
- Final relief: an injunction entered after the court resolves the relevant claims.
A request is not a finding of liability, and the wording does not mean Musk was legally barred from speaking about OpenAI.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What OpenAI alleged Musk did
The allegations below came from OpenAI’s counterclaim and were disputed; they were not established findings merely because they appeared in the filing. OpenAI described a coordinated campaign involving:
- Public criticism of OpenAI and messages to Musk’s large audience on X;
- A demand for corporate records;
- Litigation and related legal claims;
- A proposal to acquire or control assets associated with OpenAI’s nonprofit parent; and
- Attempts, OpenAI alleged, to interfere with investors, customers, governance and the restructuring plan.
OpenAI characterized those steps as harassment, bad-faith tactics and unlawful interference. Those descriptions are OpenAI’s legal and advocacy positions, not neutral findings by the court. Reuters reported that OpenAI also portrayed Musk as a competitor whose xAI interests gave him a strategic and financial reason to slow the restructuring (Reuters).
What Musk’s original lawsuit was about
Musk’s case focused on OpenAI’s change from its original nonprofit model. OpenAI was founded in December 2015 as a nonprofit AI research organization, with Musk and Sam Altman among its co-founders. Musk left in 2018, although the parties dispute aspects of the history. In 2019, OpenAI created a capped-profit structure alongside its nonprofit parent.
Musk argued that OpenAI and its leaders departed from commitments connected to the founding documents and charitable purpose by pursuing a more commercial structure and closer business ties, including Microsoft’s involvement. OpenAI proposed reorganizing into a public-benefit corporation while retaining a nonprofit component. Musk’s legal theory was about alleged breaches of those obligations, not simply a claim that the company had become “greedy” (FindLaw case summary).
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The April 2025 escalation and the reported $97.4 billion bid
The immediate backdrop was Musk’s reported bid, backed by a consortium, to acquire OpenAI’s nonprofit parent or related assets. Contemporary reports placed the bid at about $97.4 billion. OpenAI rejected it and said the effort was intended to disrupt its restructuring and slow a competitor. The valuation and reported transaction structure were figures from 2025 coverage, not a current statement of OpenAI’s corporate value or ownership.
Rank #3
Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, disputed OpenAI’s characterization. He argued that OpenAI’s board should have considered the proposal seriously and that an offer at fair market value should not be treated as improper interference (Reuters; TechCrunch).
Reports at the time also connected the restructuring to a roughly $40 billion fundraising round. That was a time-sensitive 2025 financing reference, not a current 2026 description of OpenAI’s funding or legal structure (Reuters syndication).
What happened before trial
Musk’s preliminary-injunction request
In March 2025, the judge denied Musk’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked or stopped OpenAI’s restructuring while the case continued. The denial meant Musk did not obtain immediate pretrial intervention; it did not resolve every claim on the merits (TechCrunch).
OpenAI’s counterclaims survived dismissal
In August 2025, the court denied a motion to dismiss OpenAI’s counterclaims, allowing them to proceed beyond that early stage. A motion-to-dismiss ruling tests the legal sufficiency of claims; it is not a final judgment that OpenAI proved its allegations (August 2025 order).
How Musk’s claims ended in 2026
After pretrial proceedings, including orders governing the presentation of evidence (April 2026 pretrial order), the case reached a jury. On May 18, 2026, the jury rejected Musk’s claims after finding that he had waited too long to sue under the applicable statute-of-limitations rules. The jury’s role was advisory on at least some limitations questions, and Judge Rogers accepted the result and dismissed Musk’s claims (AP; CBS News).
The outcome defeated Musk’s effort in this case to force OpenAI back toward a nonprofit structure or remove senior executives. It was principally a timeliness ruling. It was not a blanket judicial endorsement of every OpenAI accusation, nor a finding that OpenAI’s restructuring was lawful in every respect.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Did OpenAI win its countersuit?
Not on the information established here. OpenAI filed the counterclaims, and they survived an early motion to dismiss. The May 2026 verdict rejected Musk’s claims but did not itself establish a final judgment, damages award, settlement or other final disposition of OpenAI’s counterclaims.
Accordingly, the precise status of each counterclaim should be checked against the latest docket or a final order before anyone describes OpenAI as the winner of a completed countersuit. The available record supports saying that OpenAI litigated the counterclaims, not that it definitively prevailed on them (GovInfo docket; court order).
Best Value
Why the dispute matters beyond Musk and OpenAI
- Nonprofit-to-profit conversions: The case tests how founding documents and charitable-purpose obligations may affect a nonprofit’s move toward a commercial or public-benefit structure.
- Governance and founder rights: Founders may invoke early commitments, but later enforcement depends on the governing documents, applicable law and procedural deadlines.
- Competitor litigation: A lawsuit can serve both a public-interest narrative and a competitive strategy. Courts still separate protected criticism from actionable interference.
- Remedies have limits: Asking for an injunction is different from obtaining one, and a limitations-based defeat does not decide every factual or legal issue raised in the broader dispute.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was OpenAI’s April 2025 filing a new lawsuit?
No. It was a counterclaim filed within Musk’s existing federal case, Musk v. Altman, in the Northern District of California.
Did a court ban Elon Musk from criticizing OpenAI?
No. OpenAI asked for an injunction against specified allegedly unlawful conduct. The filing did not itself create a ban on criticism, and no such blanket order is established here.
What happened to Musk’s lawsuit?
On May 18, 2026, a jury rejected Musk’s claims on statute-of-limitations grounds, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the result and dismissed those claims.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Bottom Line
OpenAI’s April 9, 2025 filing was a countersuit inside Musk’s case, seeking damages and court-ordered limits on allegedly unlawful interference. Musk’s own claims were later dismissed as untimely, but that result does not establish a final victory or damages award for OpenAI’s counterclaims.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
