OpenAI’s Founding Promise Goes on Trial

Agentic AI
,
Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning
,
Litigation

Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Threatens a $852B AI Empire

Jennifer Lawinski •
April 29, 2026    

See Also: AI Agents Introduce a New Insider Threat Model

Across the room sat his scorned exes, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. In evidence, every ex-partner’s worse nightmare – seemingly every message they had ever sent, the history of a courtship, a whirlwind relationship and the tumultuous collapse – exposed and litigated in open court.

The stakes are high for enterprise customers who have bet on OpenAI and built their systems on the company’s technology, but the litigants say the case could determine the fate of humanity, and whether one of the most powerful technologies ever built will be used for good or to enrich a few individuals and unleash a Pandora’s Box of horrors on the world.

On the surface, the case of Musk v. Altman et al. is a corporate dispute between two of the most high-profile, wealthiest figures in the world of AI. But it poses a bigger question about whether the idealism that was part of OpenAI’s founding mission in 2015 will be the instrument of its unraveling in 2026. Musk’s suit alleges that OpenAI betrayed its mission as a nonprofit to go public.

If Musk succeeds, OpenAI could be dealt a death blow at a time when its fortunes have been seemingly unstoppable. It’s most recent funding round in March netted $122 billion at an $852 billion valuation, and the company is expected to go public later this year with a potential $1 trillion IPO.

OpenAI was founded as a non-profit. It’s mandate is to develop AI that benefits all of humanity, not the chosen few, a mission Musk evoked in his testimony. His lawyer entered into evidence OpenAI’s founding charter, which said the company would seek to create an open-source technology for the public benefit, and not for the gain of any one person. Musk left OpenAI in 2018 after investing $44 million in the startup.

“I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people, taught them everything I know, provided all the initial funding,” Musk testified. He said he would not have committed his time and resources if the founders had intended to turn a profit, and what happened next was a betrayal.

While the nonprofit is still technically in control of OpenAI, last October the organization restructured into a public benefit corporation, a for-profit entity that Altman argued is necessary to secure the funding that will be needed to achieve artificial general intelligence.

Musk’s suit hinges on this restructuring, and he’s asking the court to turn back the clock and unwind the corporate transition, which was approved by the attorneys general of California and Delaware, where OpenAI is headquartered and incorporated. He also wants Altman and Brockman cast out of their leadership roles, and wants to see $150 billion given back to the non-profit foundation.

In his opening statement, Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo was blunt. “No one should be allowed to steal a charity,” he said. “To steal a charity is absolutely wrong.”

OpenAI is fighting back with claims that Musk’s actions are just “sour grapes,” the actions of a man disappointed he’s lost out on controlling a world-altering technology while his competing company, xAI, falls farther behind.

“We are here because Mr. Musk didn’t get his way at OpenAI,” OpenAI’s lead attorney William Savitt told the jury. “He quit, saying they would fail for sure. But my clients had the nerve to go on and succeed without him.”

The evidence cuts both ways for each party.

On Wednesday, Musk was questioned about directing his family office to register a for-profit public benefit corporation in OpenAI’s name in 2017. He said he did it “in case it was needed,” and that he should have control because he was “providing almost all the money.” When the co-founders pushed back, Musk said he believed that they had gone back on their previous agreements and that “what they really wanted to do is create a for-profit where they had as much shareholder ownership as possible.”

Emails showed that Musk said he would no longer fund OpenAI until the company committed to remaining non-profit. “I was a fool who provided them free funding to create a start-up,” he said. “I gave them $38 million of essentially free funding to create what would become an $800 billion company.”

Meanwhile, internal documents from OpenAI show that Brockman wrote in his diary in 2017 that “This is the only chance we have to get out from Elon,” and that he was pondering how he’d reach a personal $1 billion valuation.

The trial is expected to last four weeks, and the jury will ultimately have to decide who wanted OpenAI to become a for-profit business, when they wanted it and whether making the change they made violated the non-profit charter.

If OpenAI has to roll back its conversion because a federal judge finds that it was a breach of charitable trust, its IPO timeline would be thrown into a wormhole. Musk, meanwhile, said if he loses it would “give license to looting every charity in America.”

The debacle highlights the leap of faith taken when enterprises go all-in on a vendor’s ecosystem and the stakes of third-party risk when it isn’t a technology that harbors a fatal flaw, but it’s the vendor’s business.