I deliberately chose to create this as a non-profit for the public good.
In a San Francisco courtroom, Elon Musk has taken the stand against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, arguing that a company he helped found to serve humanity was quietly converted into an instrument of profit. The case asks an old and difficult question — whether a founding vision can be legally binding, or whether institutions, like people, are permitted to change. At its heart, this is a dispute about who owns an idea, and whether the man who walked away from the table retains the right to set its terms.
- Musk alleges OpenAI's leadership betrayed a foundational promise — that artificial general intelligence would never be steered by profit motives — and is seeking billions in redirected gains and Altman's removal.
- OpenAI's defense cuts back hard, framing the lawsuit as competitive sabotage from a billionaire who left in 2018 and then built his own for-profit AI rival, xAI, while publicly decrying the very model he adopted.
- The courtroom turned combative when Musk accused opposing counsel of asking trick questions, exposing the raw tension between a witness defending a moral argument and lawyers dismantling it with his own business record.
- The case has widened to implicate Microsoft, challenge the legal obligations of charitable tech structures, and raise questions about whether a founder's original intent can bind an institution decades into its evolution.
- With Altman still to testify and weeks of proceedings ahead, the trial is shaping up as a landmark test of AI governance — one whose outcome could redraw the rules for how powerful technology companies are built and held accountable.
On the third day of his lawsuit against OpenAI, Elon Musk sat in the witness box as Sam Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman watched from the front row. The questioning grew combative. When OpenAI's lawyer William Savitt pressed him on contradictions in his claims, Musk pushed back: "Your questions are not simple. They're designed to trick me essentially."
The dispute turns on a question of founding intent. Musk contends he deliberately structured OpenAI as a non-profit because he believed artificial general intelligence — AI capable of surpassing human intelligence — was too consequential to be governed by commercial incentives. "I chose something that was for the public benefit," he testified. He is now suing Altman and OpenAI for allegedly abandoning that mission, seeking billions in what his lawyers call wrongful gains and calling for Altman's removal from leadership.
OpenAI's defense is pointed. The company argues Musk is driven by jealousy and regret over his 2018 departure, and is weaponizing the courts against a competitor he is currently losing to. Savitt highlighted the central irony: Musk launched xAI, his own AI startup, as a for-profit venture — the very model he now claims to oppose. He also noted Musk had sought to merge OpenAI with Tesla and had used early investment to exert control over other founders. Musk acknowledged wanting initial control, explaining that as the primary funder he wanted to ensure the company's direction.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, names Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft, which has invested billions in OpenAI. Musk has long criticized the company's 2019 decision to create a commercial arm — a move that predated ChatGPT but laid the groundwork for the AI boom that followed. Savitt told the jury plainly: "We're here because Mr Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI."
The trial is expected to last several weeks, with Altman scheduled to testify. The stakes extend well beyond this dispute — how courts rule on founders' obligations to preserve original missions, and on the line between rivalry and legal injury, could fundamentally reshape how AI companies are structured and governed.
Elon Musk sat in the witness box on the third day of his lawsuit against OpenAI, his dark suit crisp against the courtroom backdrop, while Sam Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman watched from the front row. The questioning had turned combative. William Savitt, OpenAI's lawyer, was pressing him on the details of his claims, and Musk bristled. "Your questions are not simple," he said at one point. "They're designed to trick me essentially."
The case itself turns on a fundamental disagreement about promises and intentions. Musk is suing Altman and OpenAI, alleging that the company's leadership misled him by steering the organization away from its non-profit roots toward a for-profit model. He contends he deliberately structured OpenAI as a non-profit because he believed artificial general intelligence—the kind of AI that could surpass human intelligence—was too consequential to be controlled by profit motives. "I could have done that with OpenAI, but I chose not to," he testified. "I chose something that was for the public benefit."
OpenAI's defense is sharper and more personal. The company argues that Musk is motivated by jealousy and regret over his departure in 2018, and that he is now using the lawsuit as a weapon against one of his key competitors in the AI race. Savitt hammered at what he saw as a central contradiction: Musk claims he wanted OpenAI to remain non-profit out of safety concerns, yet he launched xAI, his own competing AI startup, as a for-profit venture. The chatbot Grok, xAI's product, came to market as a commercial enterprise—the very model Musk now claims to oppose. Savitt also noted that Musk had wanted to merge OpenAI with Tesla, his electric vehicle company, and had used his early investment to exert control over other founders.
Musk acknowledged on the stand that he had intended to have initial control over OpenAI, though he said he expected that control to shift as more investors came on board. He was providing almost all the capital in those early days, he explained, so he wanted to ensure the company was headed in the right direction. He donated $38 million to the non-profit arm, money OpenAI says was "spent exactly as intended and in service of the mission."
The lawsuit itself is sprawling. Musk is seeking billions of dollars in what his lawyers call "wrongful gains," which he wants redirected to fund OpenAI's non-profit operations. He is also asking for a restructuring of the company, including the removal of Altman from leadership. The case stems from a 2024 filing that names not just Altman and co-founder Brockman, but also Microsoft, which has invested billions into OpenAI. Musk has long criticized the company's 2019 decision to create a commercial arm, a move that preceded ChatGPT's release by years but set the stage for the AI boom that followed.
Savitt's closing argument to the jury was blunt: "We're here because Mr Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI. Because he's a competitor, Mr Musk will do anything to attack OpenAI." The implication was clear—that this lawsuit is not about principle but about power, and about one billionaire's effort to kneecap a rival in a race he is currently losing. xAI launched in 2023, a year after ChatGPT hit the market, and has lagged behind competitors in adoption and capability.
The trial is expected to last several weeks. Altman is scheduled to testify, and the case carries implications that extend far beyond the courtroom. How courts rule on the structure of charitable tech ventures, on the obligations of founders to preserve a company's original mission, and on the line between competitive rivalry and legal injury could reshape how AI companies are governed and funded. For now, Musk remains on the stand, defending a vision of OpenAI he says he built, against lawyers who say he is simply trying to destroy what he could not control.
Notable Quotes
Your questions are not simple. They're designed to trick me essentially.— Elon Musk, to OpenAI's lawyer William Savitt
We're here because Mr Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI. Because he's a competitor, Mr Musk will do anything to attack OpenAI.— William Savitt, OpenAI's lawyer
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Musk keep insisting on the non-profit structure if he's willing to run xAI as a for-profit company?
That's the question that's eating at OpenAI's defense. Musk says the stakes are different—that AGI is too dangerous to be profit-driven. But from the courtroom, it looks like he wanted control, didn't get it, and now he's rewriting the story as principle.
Did he actually have a right to control OpenAI in the first place?
He was the biggest funder early on, so he expected a seat at the table. But he also knew that would change as other investors came in. The real fight is whether the company broke a promise to him, or whether he just didn't like how the board evolved.
What does OpenAI say about the money he gave them?
They say it was spent exactly as intended. Thirty-eight million dollars, used for the mission. They're not claiming he was defrauded. They're saying he's angry he didn't get his way.
Is there any chance Musk wins this?
It depends on what a jury thinks "non-profit" actually means. If they see it as a binding promise, Musk has a case. If they see it as a business structure that can evolve, he doesn't. The lawyers are fighting over what was said in a room ten years ago.
And if he wins, what happens to OpenAI?
He wants billions redirected to the non-profit arm and Altman out. That would be a seismic shift. But it would also set a precedent that founders can sue to undo a company's entire direction years later.
Why does the AI industry care so much about this case?
Because it's asking whether you can promise to keep something non-profit and then change your mind. If you can, every tech charity becomes fragile. If you can't, it constrains how companies can grow and adapt.