Elon Musk Testifies Against Sam Altman in OpenAI Trial
Musk testified for nearly two hours across two days in his lawsuit against OpenAI, claiming the company's leaders stole a nonprofit charity when they created a for-profit subsidiary.
Objective Facts
Musk testified for nearly two hours on Tuesday and continued testimony on Wednesday. Musk claims that Altman steered OpenAI away from its original nonprofit mission, and that Altman and others profited illegally through the for-profit conversion. Musk is seeking $130 billion in damages and wants the company to return to nonprofit structure with Altman and Brockman removed from its board. Musk testified that Microsoft's $10 billion investment in fall 2022 was the critical turning point, saying at that scale it could not be charitable and messaging Altman "What the hell is going on?" and calling it "a bait and switch". OpenAI's attorney William Savitt argued the case stems from Musk not getting his way and said the company succeeded despite Musk's predictions of failure.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Bloomberg reported that Musk testified Tuesday he is suing OpenAI because the startup's pivot from a charity to a for-profit business is wrong and sets a concerning precedent for philanthropic efforts, with Musk telling jurors "It is not okay to steal a charity". Al Jazeera documented that Musk said he was betrayed when OpenAI transformed from a nonprofit steward of AI into a profit-seeking juggernaut, and testified that "If we make it OK to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed". NPR reported Musk testified that establishing OpenAI as nonprofit gave it "the moral high ground" and "a halo effect," and that developing superintelligence should be nonprofit, but "what you can't do is have your cake and eat it too" by reaping nonprofit benefits then switching to for-profit. Musk's attorney Steven Molo told the jury in opening statements "we are here today because the defendants in this case stole a charity," arguing that defendants "enriched themselves, they made themselves more powerful, and they breached the very basic principles on which the charity was founded". Molo told jurors that the OpenAI defendants were greedy for money, stating "It wasn't a vehicle for people to get rich". Musk testified in court that he "came up with the idea, name, recruited the key people, provided the funding" and "could have started it as a for-profit, and I chose not to". Left-leaning outlets emphasize Musk's characterization as a defender of charitable giving and AI safety principles. NPR and Al Jazeera prominently featured Musk's warnings about the stakes for American philanthropy, and framed the case in terms of mission betrayal rather than competitive rivalry. These outlets gave substantial weight to Musk's testimony about his original intention and early concerns, downplaying questions about his motivation or his own xAI venture.
Right-Leaning Perspective
CNN Business reported that OpenAI's lead attorney Bill Savitt said in opening statement that when OpenAI realized it needed more money, Musk wanted full control, and when others did not agree, Musk left the company, stating "We're here because Mr. Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI. My clients had the nerve to go on and succeed without him. Mr. Musk may not like that, but it's no basis for a lawsuit". Fox Business reported that OpenAI has insisted Musk is motivated by revenge and competition, with the company writing on X that "His lawsuit remains nothing more than a harassment campaign that's driven by ego, jealousy and a desire to slow down a competitor". CNBC reported that Microsoft attorney Russell Cohen argued in opening statement that Musk was motivated to sue only after launching competing AI lab xAI in 2023, claiming "It was only after ChatGPT was so successful that he launched his own for-profit AI company, xAI, that he suddenly made his claims against Microsoft". NPR's coverage of OpenAI's opening stated that Savitt said in 2017 Musk wanted to turn OpenAI into a for-profit with himself at the helm, and that "After Musk left, Savitt said, Musk was furious that OpenAI succeeded without him: 'Then he launched his own competitor. Then he launched lawsuits'". OpenAI's official statement emphasized that "Elon and OpenAI both agreed in 2017 that a for-profit entity had to be part of the next phase," that Musk "demanded full control of OpenAI, and even wanted to merge it into Tesla," and that when OpenAI refused, "he walked away and told us we had a '0% chance' of success. He turned out to be wrong though, and a resentful Elon has attacked OpenAI ever since". The Conversation reported the lawsuit is "motivated by jealousy" and designed to damage a competitor. Right-leaning outlets and OpenAI's defense focus on Musk's alleged desire for control and his subsequent competitive motivation. Fox Business and outlets covering the defense emphasize that Musk agreed to for-profit discussions, left voluntarily, and only sued after ChatGPT's success made OpenAI valuable. They downplay the charitable mission argument and frame it as jealousy and sour grapes.
Deep Dive
The case hinges on a decision early on by OpenAI's founders that they needed to create a for-profit entity to tap capital markets for funding on a scale necessary to build advanced AI, and when discussions about who would run the for-profit business broke down in 2018, Musk left. A year after Musk's exit, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary, and the resulting company is now expected to have a blockbuster IPO that could help it dominate the AI industry where it had an early lead. The trial threatens to derail one of the world's largest AI companies and Musk's biggest AI rival, while Musk is seeking damages and structural changes to the company. Neither side disputes the core facts: Musk cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit, invested approximately $38 million, left in 2018, and OpenAI subsequently created a for-profit structure that has grown exponentially. The dispute centers on whether early discussions about a for-profit subsidiary represented shared intent or whether Musk understood it differently, and critically, whether the execution—particularly Microsoft's massive involvement—constituted a fundamental betrayal. An underlying legal question is whether a company can sell a public-good mission and later evolve into something else, while jurors and the public weigh whether this is about principle or competition. Musk's case emphasizes the charitable trust breach and implications for philanthropy; OpenAI emphasizes that Musk wanted control, left voluntarily, succeeded in exactly the way he predicted wouldn't happen, and only sued years later after founding a direct competitor. What comes next: Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and several key researchers and engineers involved in OpenAI's launch are expected to testify. Musk continues to clash with OpenAI's attorney William Savitt about questioning approach, with Musk firing back that "Your questions are definitionally complex, not simple. It is a lie to say they are simple". The jury will advise the judge on liability questions, but Judge Rogers retains ultimate decision-making authority on both liability and remedies.