The courtroom battle between Sam Altman and Elon Musk has evolved far beyond a dispute over corporate structure. The trial is now exposing a bitter ideological and financial conflict over who should control artificial intelligence, how its profits should be distributed, and whether one of Silicon Valley’s most influential companies abandoned its original mission in pursuit of enormous commercial gains.
Testifying in federal court in Oakland, California, Altman on Tuesday forcefully rejected Musk’s allegation that OpenAI’s leadership betrayed the organization’s founding commitment to build AI for humanity’s benefit rather than for corporate enrichment.
“It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing,” Altman said when asked about Musk’s accusation that he and OpenAI President Greg Brockman effectively “stole a charity.”
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 20 (June 8 – Sept 5, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
The high-stakes trial, now entering its third week before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, could reshape the future of OpenAI as the company weighs a potential initial public offering that analysts and investors believe could eventually value the firm at around $1 trillion.
At the core of the lawsuit is Musk’s claim that OpenAI abandoned its nonprofit mission after attracting billions of dollars in capital and commercial partnerships, especially from Microsoft. In his August 2024 lawsuit, Musk alleged that Altman and other OpenAI leaders persuaded him to contribute roughly $38 million to a nonprofit dedicated to safely advancing AI for humanity, only to later transform the organization into a profit-driven enterprise.
Musk is seeking about $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the money intended for the nonprofit arm of OpenAI. He is also seeking the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership positions. The case has become one of the most consequential legal confrontations in the technology industry, arriving at a moment when generative AI systems are reshaping global business, labor markets, media, defense, and geopolitics.
Altman sought to turn Musk’s accusations back on him, portraying the billionaire entrepreneur not as a protector of OpenAI’s mission but as someone who repeatedly sought dominant control over the company.
Asked whether Musk opposed OpenAI becoming a for-profit business, Altman replied, “quite the opposite.” According to Altman, Musk at one point demanded a 90% stake in OpenAI, a proposal that left him “extremely uncomfortable” because it would have effectively concentrated control of the organization in Musk’s hands.
Altman said his concerns stemmed partly from observing power dynamics at SpaceX, where Musk consolidated substantial authority over the aerospace company.
“I had quite a lot of experience with startups, had seen a lot of control fights,” Altman testified.
The testimony cuts directly against Musk’s broader public narrative that OpenAI’s leadership corrupted the company’s mission by commercializing it. Altman’s defense instead attempts to frame Musk as a frustrated co-founder who failed to gain sufficient control over an organization that later became one of the most strategically important companies in artificial intelligence.
Altman also testified that he opposed a proposal to merge OpenAI with Tesla, arguing such a move would have compromised OpenAI’s independence.
“I don’t think we would have had the ability to ensure that mission was acted on,” Altman said. “Fundamentally, Tesla needs to serve its customers and sell cars.”
What is More to the Dispute?
The exchange underscores how the dispute is fundamentally about governance and power as much as technology. OpenAI’s transition from nonprofit research lab to one of Silicon Valley’s most valuable commercial AI firms has created tensions over whether the company can simultaneously pursue enormous profits and uphold its original safety-oriented mission.
Lawyers for Musk spent much of Tuesday attempting to undermine Altman’s credibility, portraying him as a manipulative executive whose public messaging differs sharply from internal conduct. Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, cited testimony from former OpenAI officials and board members who allegedly questioned Altman’s honesty. One former board member described what was characterized in court as a “toxic culture of lying,” while multiple former officials reportedly testified that they did not trust him.
“Have you misled people when you do business?” Molo asked.
“I believe I am an honest and trustworthy business person,” Altman responded.
When pressed again, Altman answered: “I do not think so.”
The line of questioning revived scrutiny surrounding Altman’s dramatic temporary removal from OpenAI in late 2023, when the board abruptly ousted him over concerns related to candor and governance before reinstating him days later following internal backlash and pressure from employees and investors.
Altman testified that he briefly considered leaving for Microsoft during the crisis but ultimately decided to return because OpenAI was too important to abandon.
“I was willing to run back into a burning building to save it,” he said.
The trial is also offering rare insight into the extraordinary scale of capital flowing into artificial intelligence. Altman testified that OpenAI has raised approximately $175 billion from investors over its lifetime as the company races to secure computing infrastructure needed to train increasingly powerful AI models.
That spending race has become central to the global AI competition, with firms pouring unprecedented sums into semiconductors, data centers, and energy infrastructure. OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor added another dramatic dimension to the proceedings on Tuesday when he testified that Musk’s AI company, xAI, led a formal takeover attempt for OpenAI’s nonprofit arm in February 2025, months after Musk initiated legal action.
“I was surprised,” Taylor testified. “This proposal was to acquire this non-profit by a group of for-profit investors, which felt contradictory to the spirit of the lawsuit.”
That revelation could become a significant element in OpenAI’s defense strategy because it potentially weakens Musk’s argument that his lawsuit is purely about preserving OpenAI’s nonprofit mission.
The proceedings have also highlighted broader tensions inside OpenAI during Musk’s early involvement with the organization. Altman testified that some employees felt relieved after Musk departed OpenAI’s board in 2018 because they believed his management style was demoralizing researchers.
“I don’t think Mr. Musk understood how to run a good research lab,” Altman said. “He had demotivated some of our most key researchers.”
The testimony paints a picture of an organization divided not only by ideology but also by conflicting visions of leadership, governance, and AI development strategy. Several influential figures from the AI industry have already testified, including former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, who said he spent about a year compiling evidence for OpenAI directors regarding what he described as Altman’s “consistent pattern of lying.”
Satya Nadella also testified, describing Microsoft’s massive investment in OpenAI as a “calculated risk,” highlighting how deeply intertwined the software giant has become with the future of generative AI.
The case is increasingly viewed as a referendum on the future structure of the AI industry itself. The outcome could influence how courts interpret nonprofit-to-for-profit transitions in advanced technology sectors, how founders can exert control over mission-driven organizations, and how regulators may eventually oversee artificial intelligence companies with enormous economic and societal influence.
With testimony expected to conclude this week and jurors potentially beginning deliberations by May 18, the trial has already exposed the deep fractures behind the public image of the AI revolution. What began as a partnership among Silicon Valley figures promising to develop safe AI for humanity has devolved into accusations of greed, deception, power consolidation, and betrayal.