Elon Musk is making headlines again, this time seeking a staggering $134 billion in damages from both OpenAI and Microsoft, a major financial backer of the AI research organization. Beyond the financial implications, Musk aims to remove key figures in OpenAI—CEO Sam Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman—from their positions. He is also advocating for OpenAI to revert to its original nonprofit status, emphasizing that any damages awarded should benefit the nonprofit rather than himself personally.
This legal battle is complex and multifaceted, with nine jurors set to deliver an advisory verdict—essentially a non-binding recommendation—to instruct the judge as they assess Musk’s claims against Altman. The proceedings will include testimonies from Musk, Altman, and Brockman, alongside notable figures such as former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, former CTO Mira Murati, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Intriguingly, the trial promises to unveil personal communications—like cringe-worthy texts and raw diary entries—that map out the inner workings and tensions within OpenAI since its inception.
What are they fighting about?
The crux of the dispute lies in the foundational ideals of OpenAI. Initially conceived as a nonprofit entity backed by Musk’s substantial $38 million donation, OpenAI championed the creation of open-source technologies for the public’s benefit. This vision was not shackled by the rigors of financial returns. However, the company faced a shift in philosophy as it recognized that fierce competition could jeopardize its safety-focused mission. Concerns grew that a nonprofit structure would struggle to secure the necessary funding for ambitious AI development, leading to internal conflicts over the organization’s future direction.
Reports from credible sources, including the MIT Technology Review, suggest that in 2017, Altman and Brockman were interested in establishing a for-profit arm for OpenAI. Musk, conversely, proposed merging OpenAI with Tesla to secure ongoing funding. When faced with the threat of Musk withdrawing his financial backing, Altman and Brockman assured him that they were committed to the nonprofit’s mission. Musk’s allegations now assert that they secretly plotted a pivot to for-profit without his knowledge. OpenAI counters that Musk had actually agreed on the need for a for-profit entity and even expressed interest in leadership for that branch.
Even if Musk can substantiate his claims of deception against Altman and Brockman, legal experts suggest that he may lack the standing to pursue such a lawsuit in the first place. Jill Horwitz, a nonprofit law scholar at Northwestern University, highlights the peculiar nature of Musk’s entitlement to sue due to his previous role as a donor and board member. Typically, it falls under the purview of attorneys general to enforce the charitable purpose of a nonprofit, a fact that’s already been acted on concerning OpenAI’s corporate changes.
In a notable development, the attorneys general of California, where OpenAI is based, and Delaware, its state of incorporation, reached an agreement in October 2025 with OpenAI to endorse its new corporate structure, albeit with specific conditions. For instance, a safety and security committee at the nonprofit is designed to oversee choices made by the for-profit subsidiary that pertain to safety issues. Critics, including Musk, AI safety advocates, and various civil society organizations, have actively opposed this restructuring.
The California Attorney General has opted not to support Musk’s lawsuit, indicating that the office sees no substantial benefit to the public in the claims he is making. As this legal drama unfolds, it highlights not only the intricacies of Musk’s motivations but also the broader implications of corporate governance in pioneering technology.
Inspired by: Source
