A month-long trial in federal court in Oakland has put OpenAI's structure, mission and control under a microscope. Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman are presenting sharply different accounts of what the AI lab was meant to become, and whether its shift toward a for-profit structure betrayed its original purpose.
Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages and a court order that would unwind OpenAI's restructuring, which wrapped up in October. OpenAI says the case is not about protecting a charity, but about a founder who left after failing to get control.
What the trial is about
The core dispute is whether OpenAI's move toward a for-profit model crossed a line. Musk told the court that the issue is straightforward: "This lawsuit is very simple: It is not OK to steal a charity." He added that if Altman was not stopped, "It will give license to looting every charity in America."
OpenAI's side framed the history differently. Lead counsel William Savitt said Musk once wanted to take full control of OpenAI himself, then left when the other founders resisted. "We are here because Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI," Savitt said. "My clients had the nerve to go on and succeed without him."
The case is being heard by a nine-person jury, with federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presiding. The jury is expected to hear from former board members, employees and tech executives during a trial expected to run about a month.
The early-profit debate
Both sides are using OpenAI's early history to argue over what the organization was supposed to be. Musk said a conversation with Google co-founder Larry Page helped push him to start OpenAI. Page had called him a "speciesist" for putting humans ahead of future digital life-forms.
Musk told the court, "I wanted a company to be a counterweight to Google - to be the opposite of Google." He also said he came up with the name, recruited key people and provided the funding.
OpenAI pointed to early emails to challenge Musk's version of events. In 2015, Musk wrote that it was "probably better to have a standard C corp with a parallel nonprofit." A year later, he wrote that "it might have been a mistake for OpenAI to be set up as a nonprofit, given progress Deepmind was making."
According to Savitt, the founders later understood that the work would require major computing power. By 2017, Savitt said, Musk tried to "turn OpenAI into a full-on for-profit company and take absolute control of it." Savitt said the other founders "refused to turn the keys of artificial intelligence over to one person."
Musk acknowledged that he had been open to a for-profit subsidiary, but said it should have had capped profits and returned money to the nonprofit. One proposal would have divided equity equally between Musk, Altman, Greg Brockman and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. Musk called that "unfair and inappropriate," saying he had been "providing all of the funding" up to that point.
Microsoft and xAI enter the argument
Microsoft's role is also part of the courtroom fight. Musk's attorney Steven Molo accused Microsoft of being a willing accomplice after the company started pouring $13 billion into OpenAI in 2019. Molo said Microsoft stood by while Altman and Brockman made "an absolute mockery of OpenAI's charitable mission."
Microsoft attorney Russell Cohen rejected that framing, saying that "unlike Mr. Musk, Microsoft never tried to control OpenAI." The current ownership picture is also part of the case: the nonprofit, now called the OpenAI Foundation, still controls the company and holds a 26 percent equity stake. Microsoft holds 27 percent.
OpenAI's lawyers are also arguing that the timing matters. Savitt said Musk showed no interest in OpenAI for years after leaving in 2018, including when Microsoft made its first billion-dollar investment in 2019. OpenAI argues that Musk acted only after ChatGPT took off in 2022, with Savitt saying that was when "the sour grapes kick in."
The jury will deliver an "advisory verdict," but Judge Gonzalez Rogers will make the final ruling and decide any remedies.
A high-security trial with limits on social media
The courtroom fight is unfolding under tight security and unusual public attention. Before opening statements, Judge Gonzalez Rogers warned Musk to "control your propensity to use social media to make things worse outside this courtroom." Musk had mocked Altman on X as "Scam Altman" and amplified a critical New Yorker investigation by Ronan Farrow about the OpenAI CEO.
In court, Musk, Altman and Brockman agreed to a "clean slate beginning today" and promised to keep social media activity around the trial to a minimum.
Security at the courthouse has also been increased after a man, reportedly hostile toward AI, was arrested for allegedly throwing a firebomb at Altman's home in San Francisco. Musk and Altman were brought in through a private entrance while attorneys and reporters waited outside.
The trial now centers on a basic but consequential question: whether OpenAI's restructuring was a legitimate evolution of an AI lab facing large technical demands, or the conversion of a nonprofit mission into something Musk says should be reversed.