On the Stand for Three Days: Musk's Courtroom Testimony Pulls Back the Curtain on OpenAI's Founding
News Summary
In 2024, Elon Musk filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman, and Microsoft. Musk's core allegation is that OpenAI's founders reneged on an original founding agreement to operate as a nonprofit dedicated to the benefit of humanity. The case, presided over by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, moved to a jury trial in late April 2026 — drawing global attention because the outcome could directly affect OpenAI's ongoing conversion from a nonprofit structure to a for-profit capped-profit entity.
Day 1: Opening Statements and Musk Takes the Stand (April 28, 2026, Pacific Time)
On April 28, 2026 (Pacific Time), Elon Musk became the first witness in the trial, taking the stand in federal court in Oakland, California. In his opening testimony, Musk described himself as the originator of the OpenAI concept, stating: "I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people, taught them everything I know, provided all the initial funding." He explained that his motivation to co-found OpenAI stemmed from concerns that Google was not taking AI safety seriously enough, and that he believed a nonprofit, open-source research lab could serve as a counterbalance to concentrated corporate AI development.
Musk's legal team argued that he would never have committed his resources — financial, reputational, and intellectual — had the founding intent been to create a commercial enterprise. His attorney Steven Molo framed the case as one of the most consequential in Silicon Valley history, asserting that OpenAI had strayed from the mission upon which it was built.
Day 2: Cross-Examination and Claims of "Looting" (April 29, 2026, Pacific Time)
On April 29, 2026 (Pacific Time), Musk returned to the stand for his second day of testimony, facing rigorous cross-examination by OpenAI's lead attorney. Musk accused OpenAI's leadership of "looting the nonprofit," characterizing the shift to a for-profit model as a betrayal of donors, researchers, and the broader public interest in safe AI development.
One of the most contentious exchanges centered on Musk's financial contributions. OpenAI's attorney pressed Musk on the fact that while he had pledged $1 billion to OpenAI at the outset, he had only contributed approximately $38 million in documented funds. Musk pushed back, arguing that his contributions of reputation, network access, and advisory involvement exceeded $100 million in intangible value.
Another heated moment arose over a term sheet from OpenAI's early days. Musk's legal team had claimed he had read the document in full; opposing counsel pointed out that Musk had made no mention of reviewing the term sheet during any prior deposition. This inconsistency became a focal point of cross-examination. Musk also testified about his reaction upon learning of Microsoft's $10 billion investment in OpenAI in late 2022, stating: "At a $10 billion scale, there's no way Microsoft is just giving that as a donation or any kind of charitable way."
Days 3 and 4: Redirect and Microsoft's Questions (April 29–30, 2026, Pacific Time)
Musk testified for roughly five hours on April 29, 2026 (Pacific Time), with proceedings continuing into April 30, 2026 (Pacific Time) for a third consecutive day on the stand. OpenAI's attorney concluded cross-examination on April 30, covering various commitments and nonprofit initiatives tied to OpenAI's founding period. Musk's attorney Steven Molo then conducted a redirect examination, allowing Musk to clarify and expand on earlier testimony.
In an additional development, Musk was questioned by Russell Cohen, a lawyer representing Microsoft, which is named as a co-defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting OpenAI's transition away from its nonprofit roots. Before jurors entered the courtroom on April 30, 2026 (Pacific Time), Musk's legal team raised a procedural dispute regarding the scope of expert witness testimony from Professor Stuart Russell of UC Berkeley. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled: "The expert will not testify outside the confines of their report and anything disclosed during their deposition."
What Musk Is Seeking
Musk's lawsuit seeks three primary forms of relief: (1) reversion of OpenAI to its original nonprofit structure; (2) the removal of Sam Altman and Greg Brockman from OpenAI's board; and (3) approximately $130 billion in damages to be returned to OpenAI's nonprofit foundation. A jury verdict in the case will serve in an advisory role to Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who retains final authority over the legal outcomes.
Broader Significance for Artificial Intelligence Development
The trial has surfaced a fundamental tension in the AI industry: how should transformative technology organizations balance their research missions with the capital requirements of large-scale AI development? OpenAI argues its for-profit restructuring was necessary to attract the investment needed to compete at the frontier of AI research. Musk contends that allowing profit motives to guide frontier AI development undermines the safety-first principles that motivated OpenAI's founding.
The case also highlights the complex relationships between technology investors, nonprofit governance, and corporate power in the AI sector. With billions of dollars and the structural future of one of the world's most influential AI labs at stake, legal experts and technology observers are watching closely. Regardless of the verdict, the proceedings have already brought unprecedented transparency to the early decisions and interpersonal dynamics that shaped the modern AI research landscape.