On May 18, 2026, a federal trial court in the United States efficiently and sophisticatedly decided, without interference from higher courts, the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against OpenAI , Sam Altman , Microsoft , and 15 other defendants.
The process took just over a year and a half, including three weeks of trial and 11 days of embarrassing testimony from influential witnesses in the technology sector. Meanwhile, in Brazil, a lawsuit takes, on average, four years to be completed, and public confidence in its judicial system has never been at such a low level.
Musk alleged more than two dozen legal and contractual violations by the defendants, which, according to American procedural rules, require individualized analysis by the judge. The central argument presented by the billionaire was that OpenAI plundered a foundation by converting it into a for-profit company, after inducing Musk to believe that his donations would be used exclusively for the benefit of humanity.
Despite belonging to the clan of the world's most sophisticated and creative investors, the parties were unable to resolve their disputes with each other. To settle this imbroglio, which exceeds US$150 billion, they submitted themselves to the same justice system accessible to any American citizen.
It is this certainty of being able to count on an efficient and sophisticated justice system that encourages American investors to finance long-term business activities.
It is no coincidence that Daron Acemoglu , laureate of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2024, places the rule of law as a pillar of his thesis on the prosperity of nations: when rules apply to everyone and are applied efficiently and predictably, individuals feel secure enough to invest, innovate, and take risks with capital in a sustainable way. Where legal uncertainty prevails, as in the case of Brazil, capital retreats and takes refuge in short-term fixed income.
The unprecedented controversy between Musk and OpenAI was able to be resolved quickly in the United States. One of the structural advantages of the American legal system is its flexibility and low level of formalism—aspects that deserve consideration in Brazil.
Federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, appointed to the position by President Barack Obama in 2011, understood the urgency and relevance of the litigation. And rightly so: OpenAI had completed the largest capital raising round in history, totaling US$122 billion, reaching a market valuation of US$852 billion, in preparation for an initial public offering of shares planned for this year.
The judge prioritized this lawsuit, placing it on an accelerated schedule ahead of older cases. To ensure the desired pace, the judge appointed an auxiliary magistrate responsible for resolving evidentiary issues. Furthermore, in the pre-trial phase, she rejected several allegations of non-compliance, deeming them unfounded. Thus, the litigants arrived at the trial with the scope of the dispute limited.
Quick, technical and well-founded response.
Since Musk was not seeking personal damages, but rather the return of funds to the non-profit foundation that gave rise to OpenAI, the claims were purely equitable in nature. Therefore, neither party had a constitutional right to a jury trial. Nevertheless, the judge, exercising her discretion, convened an advisory jury composed of six women and three men.
At first glance, an advisory jury functions like any other. Its members follow the entire trial, listen to the evidence presented, and deliberate until reaching a verdict, exactly like a regular jury. Unlike a verdict from a regular jury, the verdict of an advisory jury is not binding: it is designed to "inform the conscience of the court."
In the dispute in question, the advisory jury discussed the case in less than two hours and unanimously concluded that Musk had waited too long to file a lawsuit. In other words, his claims were time-barred. The judge, who was not legally obligated to follow this opinion, chose to accept it immediately as the final judgment, as she understood there was substantial evidence to support it.
The episode reveals an institutional arrangement that combines two complementary values: on the one hand, the legitimacy and agility of popular participation in the trial and, on the other, the technical control and responsibility of the professional judge. The advisory jury allows citizens' perceptions of the facts to be heard, without sacrificing legal rigor and without leaving the outcome of a highly complex dispute to the chance of a layperson's deliberation.
In a process involving an unprecedented issue and billions of dollars, the American legal system helped deliver what matters most to investors and innovators: a swift, technical, and well-founded response.
In the Brazilian scenario, however, the costs stemming from uncertainty and procedural delays are incalculable. As long as the fear of legal insecurity persists, especially in the ordinary courts (first and second instance), investors in the country will tend to prioritize the short term and the comfortable security of fixed income.
* Gustavo Benchimol , CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst), is a lawyer in New York and Brazil.
