Elon Musk’s long-running feud with OpenAI has moved from social media attacks and public accusations into a federal courtroom, where the billionaire entrepreneur is accusing the artificial intelligence company he helped launch of abandoning its founding mission and transforming a nonprofit project into one of the most powerful profit-driven companies in technology.
Musk is suing OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman and major backer Microsoft, arguing that OpenAI was originally created to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity, not to become a corporate giant tied closely to commercial interests. At the center of the case is OpenAI’s evolution from a nonprofit research lab founded in 2015 into a company with a major for-profit arm and a multibillion-dollar partnership with Microsoft. Musk claims that shift violated the spirit of the original agreement behind OpenAI’s creation.
The trial began this week in federal court in Oakland, California, with Musk taking the witness stand and portraying himself as a betrayed founder and early funder. He testified that he helped create OpenAI as a counterweight to Google’s DeepMind and as a safeguard against dangerous artificial intelligence being controlled by a small number of corporate players. According to court reporting, Musk said he donated about $38 million to OpenAI between 2015 and 2017 while believing the organization would remain committed to a nonprofit, public-benefit mission.
Musk’s central accusation is that Altman, Brockman and OpenAI effectively “stole a charity” by taking what began as a nonprofit AI safety project and turning it into a highly valuable commercial enterprise. His lawsuit seeks massive damages — reported by outlets in the range of more than $100 billion — along with major structural changes, including restoring OpenAI’s nonprofit status and removing Altman and Brockman from leadership roles.
OpenAI has strongly denied Musk’s allegations. The company argues that Musk was aware of, and at times supportive of, the need for a for-profit structure to raise the enormous amounts of capital required to compete in advanced AI. OpenAI’s lawyers have also framed the lawsuit as a competitive attack, saying Musk is now trying to weaken a rival after launching his own AI company, xAI. In its public response, OpenAI said it remains governed by a nonprofit and argued that Musk’s donation was used for its intended mission, not as an investment giving him ownership rights.
The case is also drawing attention because Microsoft is involved. Microsoft’s multibillion-dollar investment helped OpenAI scale products such as ChatGPT and gave the company the computing power needed to compete at the highest level of artificial intelligence. Musk argues that this relationship shows OpenAI became too closely aligned with private corporate interests. OpenAI counters that such partnerships were necessary to build and deploy powerful AI systems at global scale.
Beyond the personal clash between Musk and Altman, the lawsuit raises a larger question: who should control the future of artificial intelligence? Musk’s side presents the case as a fight over whether charitable, public-interest missions can be converted into profit-making machines. OpenAI’s side presents it as a dispute driven by Musk’s loss of influence over a company that became more successful after he left.
The outcome could have major consequences for OpenAI’s business structure, its relationship with Microsoft, and its future fundraising or public-market ambitions. A Musk victory could force changes in OpenAI’s governance or limit its ability to operate like a traditional high-growth technology company. A win for OpenAI would strengthen the company’s argument that its current structure is legally valid and necessary for competing in the AI race.
For now, the trial has become one of the most closely watched legal battles in technology: a courtroom fight over money, mission, power and the future direction of artificial intelligence. What began as a nonprofit dream to build AI for humanity has become a bitter legal showdown between two of Silicon Valley’s most recognizable figures.
