US$134 billion is the headline demand in a high-stakes lawsuit Elon Musk has brought against OpenAI. Musk wants Sam Altman and Greg Brockman removed, the company returned to its original nonprofit structure, and damages redistributed to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm. The trial opened in a federal court in Oakland this week, with testimony, rapid-fire cross-examination, and courtroom glitches underscoring how personal the dispute has become. The outcome will test legal limits on how early mission promises can be changed as AI firms scale and take on outside capital.

The case reads like a tech-age fable. Two founders who once worked together now face off in a jury trial about what an AI lab should be and who gets to control it. Elon Musk has accused Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaking agreements made when OpenAI was set up in 2015 as a nonprofit research lab. He says they converted it into a for-profit vehicle and unjustly enriched themselves.

What Musk is asking the court to do

Musk is seeking a suite of dramatic remedies. He wants Altman and Brockman removed from OpenAI. He wants the last year’s conversion to a for-profit structure undone. And he seeks US$134 billion in damages, which he has said should be given to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm.

The figure is eye-catching. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has already raised questions about the scale of the damages during pre-trial proceedings. Musk has described his original contribution as roughly US$38 million of "essentially free funding". He argues that initial gifts and commitments gave him rights that were later violated.

OpenAI's defence and the capital question

OpenAI rejects Musk’s account. The company says it was upfront about commercial plans and that Musk left in 2018 after a failed attempt to take over the organisation. OpenAI’s lawyers say Musk’s US$38 million was a tax-deductible donation and didn't entitle him to control over the lab.

Part of OpenAI’s argument rests on the practical problem of building advanced AI. The company created a for-profit arm, it says, because the computational and research costs grew enormous. External investors, most notably Microsoft, have since put large sums into OpenAI. Those investments are central to the company’s growth case when the hearing turns to motive and necessity.

Courtroom scenes and testimony

The first days of the trial combined legal formality with moments of friction. Microphones cut out. Presentation slides vanished.

Mastheads

Judge Gonzalez Rogers quipped about courtroom equipment and taxpayer funds as counsel adjusted to the technical hitches.

Musk took the stand after his lawyer, Steven Molo, called him to testify. The early questions traced Musk’s tech career and his role in OpenAI’s founding. The judge warned Molo repeatedly against asking leading questions.

When OpenAI’s lead counsel, William Savitt, began cross-examining, the tone shifted. Savitt moved quickly through emails and text messages from the time when OpenAI’s future structure was being discussed. He pressed Musk on whether he knew about plans to create a for-profit arm. At points the judge had to instruct Musk to answer with yes or no.

Musk pushed back. He complained that questions were misleading and at times refused to give brief answers. He told counsel, "You're being misleading with your question," and, "Your questions are designed to trick me," prompting the judge to remind him to stick to short responses.

Several pieces of internal correspondence are now in evidence. One set of messages dates to 2017 and shows Sam Altman reiterating a commitment to a nonprofit structure, while other communications refer to the large capital needs of advanced AI. Those documents are central to how the jury will weigh intent versus adaptation to funding realities.

Broader stakes and the industry angle

At first glance the dispute looks like a private contract fight. In substance it's broader. It makes people wonder about how AI research labs balance mission and money as they scale. The legal outcome could affect governance models used by deep-tech companies worldwide.

OpenAI is now one of the most valuable private AI companies. The company has been linked to valuations in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Some filings and reports have put that figure at about US$852 billion, with speculative IPO talk rising to roughly US$1 trillion. Those numbers illustrate what's at stake for founders, investors and employees.

The lawsuit also touches on competition in consumer-facing AI. Musk’s xAI operates a Grok chatbot that competes directly with OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Testimony about competing products, market strategy and partnerships will feed into the jury’s sense of motive and harm.

Jury selection was set to begin with a nine-person jury. The trial is in federal court in Oakland, where Judge Gonzalez Rogers will oversee legal rulings and fact-finding. Observers expect more testimony from senior industry figures. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is among those named as likely witnesses, given Microsoft’s large investments in OpenAI.

The judge has signalled a willingness to rein in theatrics. She interrupted lawyers when questions wandered into leading territory. She also stepped in when Musk’s answers grew long and discursive. Those interventions show the court wants focused testimony and discrete legal issues decided on the evidence in front of the jury.

Related Articles

Jury selection was due to begin this week, with a nine-person panel in federal court in Oakland set to decide Musk's claims and the US$134 billion damages demand.

This article was created with AI assistance.