Author: Special Translator Jin Lu ( Tencent Technology)
Edited by Boyang
The trial of Musk v. Altman; image processed by AI.
On April 28, U.S. time, the case of Musk v. OpenAI was heard in the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California.
Musk was the first witness to testify, attempting to explain to the nine-person jury why he initially chose to make OpenAI a non-profit organization. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman were present in court as observers.
Ten years ago, they were partners who envisioned the future of AI together. Now, Musk is demanding that Altman and Brockman leave OpenAI and return all "unjust enrichment" to the OpenAI charity.
At the heart of this trial is an AI giant valued at over a trillion dollars, and the complete collapse of trust between two former friends.
01 Three Core Controversies
On April 27, jury selection for this case was completed. The presiding judge is Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who previously presided over the Epic Games v. Apple antitrust case in 2021.
Musk's 2024 lawsuit originally contained 26 charges, but after preliminary rulings, only two remained to proceed to trial: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. The trial is divided into two phases—the liability phase, involving a jury whose verdict is advisory; and the remedial phase, if liability is found, which is heard by a judge alone.
On the morning of April 28, the court statements were presented in sequence. The three legal teams representing Musk, OpenAI (including Altman and Brockman), and Microsoft clashed over three core issues.
Controversy 1: What is OpenAI's mission, and are there any conditions attached to Musk's $38 million donation?
Musk's lawyer, Steven Molo, presented OpenAI's 2015 founding bylaws in court. The document states that the organization "is not organized for the private benefit of any individual" and will create "open-source technology for the public good." Molo argued that the approximately $38 million donated by Musk constitutes a charitable trust, requiring OpenAI to remain a non-profit organization indefinitely.
In his opening statement, Morrow raised three questions for the jury to keep in mind:
Does OpenAI have a philanthropic mission as a non-profit organization, namely, to develop safe, open-source AI for the benefit of humanity?
Did Ultraman and Brockman violate this mission by establishing for-profit businesses?
Did Microsoft know this mission and assist Ultraman and Brockman in violating it?
He stated directly that "without Musk, there would be no OpenAI," and said that OpenAI's shift to for-profit operations was tantamount to "breaking every promise." "No one should be allowed to steal from charities," he said.
Musk echoed this stance in the witness stand. “It specifically refers to a charity that does not benefit any individual,” he said, pointing to the founding bylaws. “I could have started it for profit, but I chose not to. I chose to make it something that benefits all of humanity.”
Musk appeared as the first witness.
Musk also characterized the case as a matter of the very foundation of charitable giving: “Stealing from charities is wrong. If Altman and OpenAI win, it will open the door to plundering every charity in America.” He further warned: “The consequences of this case go far beyond me or anyone here. The entire foundation of American charitable giving will be destroyed.”
OpenAI's lawyer, William Savitt, offered a completely different response. He told the jury, "The question is, did OpenAI make any specific promises to Musk when he donated? The answer is no." Savitt insisted that the donations came without any conditions. He also revealed that Musk never fulfilled all of his donation commitments, forcing the organization to seek additional support.
Savit also attempted to refute Musk's claims by examining OpenAI's current structure. He told the jury that despite Musk's allegations, the company has not abandoned its nonprofit mission. The nonprofit foundation "still controls the organization" and is "doing cutting-edge work in treating diseases and promoting economic diversity." He pointed out that Altman has no stake in OpenAI, but stated that Altman profits through various companies doing business with OpenAI and has indicated he might acquire equity in OpenAI in the future.
Controversy 2: Did Musk ever approve of OpenAI's shift towards a for-profit model?
Savit submitted in court an email from Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI board member, addressed to Sam Teller, who had previously worked for Musk.
The email discussed two restructuring options: consolidating all content into a single Class B company (i.e., a non-profit corporation), or separating it into a Class C company and a non-profit organization. Savitt claimed that Musk "never expressed the view that OpenAI must remain a purely non-profit organization," and stated that he "only supports for-profit organizations as long as he controls everything."
Savitt also provided details about the share allocation. The evidence he presented to the jury showed that Musk's chief of staff had discussed giving Musk 55% of the profitable shares and Altman 7.5%.
In his opening statement, Moreau addressed this question beforehand. He acknowledged that Musk had indeed discussed the idea of creating a for-profit version of OpenAI, but emphasized that Musk's condition was always that "the non-profit organization must control the for-profit entity." Moreau stated that the initial idea was for Musk to control the for-profit subsidiary, and that the subsidiary's importance would "decline over time," serving merely as a way to raise funds in the short term.
Musk himself addressed the structural controversy directly on the witness stand. He acknowledged that there had been internal discussions within OpenAI between 2017 and 2018 regarding the establishment of a for-profit entity. He expressed openness to “a small, for-profit organization that funds a nonprofit,” provided that “it’s not the other way around”—the nonprofit must retain control.
He also explained his eventual departure: in a 2017 email to the executive office, he expressed his frustration that the other founders were demanding excessive equity in the proposed for-profit division, and seemed determined to leave. He officially left the OpenAI board in 2018.
Controversy 3: What is Musk's real motive for filing the lawsuit?
Savitt explained, "We're here because Musk didn't get what he wanted at OpenAI."
He described a timeline: Musk left in 2018 after a power struggle, saying "they were bound to fail," but Altman and others "had the guts to move forward and succeed without him"; ChatGPT became a global sensation after its release in late 2022; Musk founded his own for-profit AI company, xAI, in 2023, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in 2024.
Savitt summarized Musk's motives as "sour grapes," stating, "Mr. Musk doesn't like this, but that's not grounds for the lawsuit." He also bluntly stated, "Musk doesn't really understand artificial intelligence."
Savit further elaborated on this timeline. He said that Musk only expressed dissatisfaction with OpenAI's pursuit of profit after ChatGPT sparked a global AI arms race, by which time Musk had already founded xAI.
Microsoft's lawyer, Russell Cohen, aligns with the OpenAI camp on this point and offers two specific arguments.
First, he cited a September 2020 post by Musk on X—"OpenAI has basically been captured by Microsoft"—as evidence that Musk knew about it long ago but failed to file a lawsuit in time, using this as evidence to raise a statute of limitations defense. Second, he revealed a more private channel of communication between Musk and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: "Musk knew how to contact Nadella. In the five years after the partnership was announced, Mr. Musk never picked up the phone and said, 'You can't do this.'"
Microsoft's lawyers say Musk could easily contact Nadella.
He emphasized that Musk personally possessed Nadella's phone number. Cohen concluded that Musk launched xAI after the success of ChatGPT, "and then he suddenly filed a claim against Microsoft."
Morrow attempted to distance the case from Musk's personal interests. "This case isn't about Elon Musk," he emphasized to the jury, "but about the defendant's embezzlement and violation of the organization's fundamental principles." Morrow stated that the case was for "the benefit of all humanity," not economic gain. He asked the jurors to set aside their preconceived notions about Musk: "Everyone seems to know Musk and has their own opinions about him. Not everyone's opinion is good, and not everyone's opinion is bad."
Morrow also acknowledged that Altman has no stake in OpenAI, a fact that could undermine Musk's claim that Altman is profiting through nonprofits. However, he argued that Altman profits through various companies doing business with OpenAI and has indicated he might acquire equity in OpenAI in the future.
02 A side note: Musk talks about the AI apocalypse
During the trial, numerous scenes emerged that were detached from the three core disputes. These scenes did not address the nature of the donations, the legality of the structural changes, or the motives for the lawsuit, but they constituted the dramatic scenes of the first day of the trial.
Musk's self-presentation took up a large portion of the proceedings. His lawyer, Moreau, used a series of questions to paint a complete picture of the entrepreneur for the jury: Musk grew up in South Africa, worked as a lumberjack and waiter in Canada before coming to the United States, and had "$100,000 in student debt" while in college. He is the CEO of both Tesla and SpaceX, "works 80 to 100 hours a week," and "has no holidays or vacation homes."
Speaking about SpaceX, Musk said the company's goal is to "make life multiplanetary," calling it "life insurance for all life as we know it." Regarding Neuralink, he stated its long-term goal is "AI safety," adding, "If we can achieve symbiosis between AI and humans, we can achieve an AI that is more beneficial to humanity."
Regarding AI, Musk issued a strong warning about the risks. He likened training AI to raising a child: "Ultimately, when the child grows up, you can't really control that child, but you can try to instill the right values." He predicted the speed of AI's development: "It could be as intelligent as any human being as early as next year."
He then concluded, "It could make us more prosperous, but it could also kill us all." He used two movies to illustrate the two possibilities: "We want Star Trek, not Terminator."
A minor digression occurred during the cross-examination. When Moro asked, "Who is Shivon Zilis?" Musk paused for a moment, stammered a few words, and then laughed, referring to her as his "chief of staff." In fact, Zilis is a former OpenAI board member and the mother of several of Musk's children.
Altman kept a very low profile on the first day of the trial. He did not take the opportunity to speak to the media or the public during his opening statement. The only description of him in the trial transcript is: "with his arms crossed, looking worried, talking to his lawyers and team members"; during recess, he "typed on his phone"; and when the judge warned both parties to stop the cyberattacks, he remained silent and simply agreed to the judge's request.
03 The Battle Outside the Courtroom
Outside of the court hearing, the public exchanges between the two sides continue.
Before the trial, Judge Rogers called Musk and Altman to the bench and asked them to stop their cyberattacks on social media, urging both to start with "clean hands" and "say as little as possible" on social media. Both agreed.
Regarding the industry impact of the trial, AI security expert Vivian Dong predicts it will be "primarily limited to OpenAI."
“No specific AI safety policies or industry practices have been put on trial,” she said. “It would be unprecedented for a court to order the kind of structural changes Musk is seeking at OpenAI in a private lawsuit for breach of charitable trusts.” She added that the officials overseeing OpenAI’s philanthropic mission are the attorneys general of Delaware and California, not Musk himself.
Emarketer's chief analyst, Nate Elliott, offered another perspective: "If Musk wins, it would represent a rare case of a tech CEO being held accountable. It could also mean the end of OpenAI's business and give xAI and Grok a competitive opportunity they currently lack."
Following this hearing, Musk is scheduled to return to court on April 29th (US time) to continue facing direct questioning from his lawyer, Morrow, and may subsequently face cross-examination from Savitt. The judge has explicitly ordered that Musk not speak with his lawyers at night.
Further witnesses will be called in subsequent hearings. Musk's legal team stated that Jared Birchall, who manages Musk's multi-billion dollar assets through his family office Excession LLC and also serves as an executive at xAI and Neuralink, will testify later.
Musk's expert witnesses include Stuart J. Russell, an AI researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and David M. Schizer, a law professor at Columbia University.
Key witnesses expected to appear in court include Altman, Nadella, Muratti, and Sutskevi.
In addition, witnesses expected to testify include Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, and Ilya Sutskever, a key early researcher at OpenAI. Musk specifically mentioned the difficulty of recruiting Sutskever in his testimony—calling it a “huge effort” and an “extremely difficult” process, which led Page to “refuse to speak to me anymore.” He described Sutskever as one of the “most important” researchers contributing to OpenAI’s existence.
The trial is expected to last about four weeks. In the subsequent cross-examination, Musk's testimony regarding the founding principles, the nature of charitable donations, and structural changes will be examined by the opposing lawyers for the first time.
