The Docket: Musk v. Altman
Primary-source court documents for the OpenAI charitable-trust trial. Direct links to filings, the federal docket, and the regulatory law underneath the dispute.
Why this case matters as a charitable-trust case
Read past the celebrity-feud framing in much of the press coverage, and the legal substance of Musk v. Altman is a question that nonprofit lawyers have been asking for decades: when an organization receives charitable contributions under an explicit § 501(c)(3) mission, what happens when it later restructures into something that looks materially different from what donors and the IRS were promised?
OpenAI's own founding document is exhibit one. The Certificate of Incorporation, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and quoted directly in the federal complaint, contains the standard inurement-prohibition language required of every § 501(c)(3) entity:
Two of Musk's original 26 claims survived to trial: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Both turn on how courts should treat assets that were donated to a charitable mission and then end up inside a for-profit corporate structure. The fraud and constructive-fraud claims were dismissed by Musk's own lawyers ahead of trial. Microsoft is named separately on an aiding-and-abetting theory.
Primary documents
The links below go directly to the filed documents. PDFs are hosted by the original publishers (Courthouse News, Deadline, FTC.gov, CourtListener); muskvaltman.ai does not rehost them.
The original 46-page filing in San Francisco Superior Court. Lays out the "Founding Agreement" theory and Musk's breach-of-contract framing. Later withdrawn in favor of the federal action.
The expanded 83-page federal complaint that became the operative pleading. Adds RICO, antitrust, and false-advertising counts. Quotes the OpenAI Certificate of Incorporation and the § 501(c)(3) inurement language verbatim.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers' 16-page ruling on Musk's request to halt OpenAI's restructuring. Significant for its analysis of whether Musk's $44M+ in donations created an "enforceable conditional gift" — the central conditional-trust question.
Joint federal brief addressing the Section 8 Clayton Act interlocking-directorate claims involving Microsoft's Hoffman and Templeton seats on the OpenAI board. Notable for the federal government weighing in on the antitrust-adjacent allegations without taking a position on the underlying nonprofit-law claims.
Free public mirror of the PACER docket via the RECAP Initiative. All filings, orders, witness lists, and trial-schedule entries through the present. The most authoritative public record of the case.
Complete list of plaintiffs, defendants (35+ named entities), and the law firms representing each side: MoloLamken, Toberoff & Associates (plaintiffs); Wachtell Lipton, Kirkland & Ellis, Morrison & Foerster, Cooley LLP (defendants).
What the trial is actually deciding
The trial is bifurcated. The liability phase (currently underway) asks the advisory jury whether Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft are responsible for breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. If the jury finds liability, the case proceeds to a remedies phase, where Judge Gonzalez Rogers — not the jury — issues binding orders. Because the case is being tried in equity, the jury's verdict is non-binding; the judge has the final say.
The remedies Musk has requested are unusually structural: removal of Altman and Brockman from their roles, an injunction unwinding OpenAI's October 2025 conversion to a public benefit corporation, and disgorgement of "wrongful gains" — Musk's expert estimates these at roughly $79–134 billion, calculated as a share of OpenAI's current valuation attributable to Musk's early contributions. Musk has asked that any monetary award be paid to OpenAI's nonprofit arm rather than to him personally.
Read further
For the regulatory architecture underneath the case — the actual Internal Revenue Code provisions and Treasury regulations governing § 501(c)(3) charities — see the companion explainer: