The fate of OpenAI and its senior leadership is dependent on the last stage of the long-running lawsuit filed by OpenAI co-founder, Elon Musk. Musk, who moved the case to the courts, has testified against Sam Altman, the CEO of the company, and Greg Brockman, President of OpenAI, for leading a non-profit AI research firm to evolve into a profit-driven one, against the company’s original mission.
The lawsuit enters its final act this week, as closing arguments concluded in a California federal court involving all parties concerned. A nine-person jury is now tasked with deciding the conclusion of a case that could fundamentally reshape the future of one of the world’s most valuable AI startups.
The lawsuit, filed by Musk originally in 2024, centers on the allegation that OpenAI abandoned its original non-profit mission to benefit humanity in favour of a for-profit status, going in pursuit of wealth, particularly through its multi-billion-dollar partnership with Microsoft.
Court to decide on the core decision: Breach of trust
The jury is not merely weighing a personality clash between two co-founders; instead, they are answering narrow but critical legal questions:
Breach of charitable trust: Did Altman and Greg Brockman violate a specific agreement with Musk to use his early donations solely for non-profit, charitable purposes?
Unjust enrichment: Have the defendants unfairly profited from assets that were supposed to be held in the public interest?
Statute of limitations: OpenAI’s strongest defense hinges on timing. They argue Musk waited too long to sue, claiming any “harms” occurred years before his 2024 filing.
If the jury finds OpenAI liable, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will determine the remedy in a second phase.
If things are to go in favour of Musk, OpenAI will have to seed $150 billion in damages and remove Altman as well as Brockman from their leadership positions.
Elon Musk vs Sam Altman lawsuit: Developments so far
The trial throws light on the “blip” – the chaotic period in late 2023 when Altman was briefly fired by the non-profit board and then reinstated days later with Microsoft’s backing.
Musk’s legal team argues this moment proved that Microsoft now holds veto rights over OpenAI’s major decisions, effectively turning a “charity” into a closed-source subsidiary of a tech giant. OpenAI, conversely, presented forensic evidence showing that all of Musk’s initial $44 million in donations were spent on research prior to the for-profit deviation, arguing that his “charitable” intent was fully honoured before the company ever changed shape.
Musk’s testimony: “They stole a charity”
Taking the stand earlier in the trial, Elon Musk testified that he was “tricked” into providing the seed funding and prestige necessary to attract top talent, only to see Altman and Brockman “strip-mine” the technology for private gain.
Musk highlighted that his skepticism grew into “conviction” when Microsoft announced a $10 billion investment in 2023. He testified that OpenAI has become a “de facto closed-source subsidiary” of Microsoft, focused on commercialising Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) rather than ensuring it remains safe and accessible to the world.
Altman’s defense: “Musk wanted full control”
In response, Sam Altman’s testimony offered a sharply different narrative, painting Musk as a leader who sought total dominance over the organisation.
The power struggle: Altman testified that Musk once demanded 90% equity in OpenAI and insisted on merging it with Tesla — an idea Altman rejected because “Tesla is a car company and does not have the mission of OpenAI.”
The “hair-raising” demand: In one of the trial’s most discussed moments, Altman recalled asking Musk what would happen to his controlling stake if he died. Musk reportedly replied that control might pass to his children. Altman told the jury this was “extremely uncomfortable” as it contradicted the goal of keeping AGI out of the hands of any single person or family.
Morale and management: Altman claimed Musk’s departure in 2018 was actually a “morale boost” for researchers, alleging Musk had previously ordered leadership to “take a chainsaw” to the staff by ranking and firing top scientists.