Musk vs OpenAI Trial Begins With $150 Billion and AI Governance at Stake

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman heads to trial on April 27, with jury selection beginning in a federal courthouse in Oakland, California. The case, formally known as Musk v. Altman, centers on Musk’s claim that OpenAI abandoned its founding nonprofit mission in favor of a for‑profit structure that has enriched its leaders at the expense of the public good.

According to CNBC, the trial pits two of the most influential figures in AI against each other: Musk, who co‑founded OpenAI in 2015 and donated at least $38 million, and Altman, who has overseen the company’s transformation into a commercial juggernaut valued at over $850 billion. Opening arguments are expected Tuesday, with the liability phase running through mid‑May.

Musk originally filed 26 claims. That number has been whittled down to two: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. On April 24, Reuters reported that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Musk’s fraud claims at his own request — a strategic move, not a concession. Fraud requires proving intentional deception, a higher evidentiary bar. The remaining claims focus on outcomes rather than intent, which are easier to prove because the facts are largely undisputed: OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit, converted to for‑profit, and its leaders now hold equity in the for‑profit entity.

As TNW notes, Musk is seeking up to $150 billion in damages, with proceeds directed to OpenAI’s charitable arm. (The exact figure varies by source: CNBC reports $134 billion, while WSJ puts it as high as $180 billion.) He has also asked that Altman and president Greg Brockman hand over all equity and personal financial benefits obtained from OpenAI’s for‑profit operations.

The most damaging piece of evidence for OpenAI comes from co‑founder Greg Brockman’s own hand. In a 2017 personal diary entry, Brockman wrote: “I cannot believe that we committed to non‑profit if three months later we’re doing b‑corp then it was a lie.”

Judge Gonzalez Rogers cited this entry when sending the case to trial, according to TNW. The entry suggests that at least one co‑founder privately questioned the sincerity of OpenAI’s nonprofit commitment while the company was still publicly affirming it — a fact that goes to the heart of whether the nonprofit structure was genuine or a temporary placeholder.

Additional unsealed discovery materials include a 2017 email from Altman claiming he remained “enthusiastic about the non‑profit structure” after Musk threatened to cut funding, according to TNW, which Musk’s attorneys frame as misrepresentation to keep donations flowing.

This is not a standard jury trial. The nine‑member jury is advisory only — Judge Gonzalez Rogers alone decides both liability and remedies, as TNW reports. The jury’s verdict carries moral authority but is not legally binding. If the court finds liability, a remedies phase begins May 18.

The witness list reads like a who’s who of AI: Musk, Altman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, co‑founder Ilya Sutskever, now CEO of Safe Superintelligence Inc.,, and Neuralink executive Shivon Zilis. Notably, Sutskever owned approximately $4 billion in vested OpenAI shares at the time of Altman’s brief firing in late 2023, per The Verge.

OpenAI has dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless” and a “harassment campaign driven by ego, jealousy and a desire to slow down a competitor,” according to CNBC. The defense will argue that Musk left the board in February 2018, reneged on a larger planned donation, and has no standing to dictate the company’s structure years later. They will also highlight that Musk founded xAI in 2023 and recently merged it with SpaceX in a $1.25 trillion deal — arguing his motivations are competitive, not charitable.

OpenAI points to its restructured nonprofit, now called the OpenAI Foundation, which holds roughly 26% of the company’s valuation (approximately $130 billion) and retains oversight of mission alignment. The company has also committed $25 billion to the foundation, making it one of the most well‑endowed philanthropic organizations in the world. But at least 12 senior executives have left since the conversion, and the shuttering of OpenAI for Science and Sora reinforce the argument that commercial revenue took priority over research.

The trial arrives at a delicate moment. Reuters reports OpenAI is preparing for a potential IPO that could value it at $1 trillion, and the company disclosed this litigation as a risk factor in documents shared with prospective investors.

For developers and builders who rely on OpenAI’s APIs, this trial is not abstract. The core question — whether OpenAI’s nonprofit charter can meaningfully constrain a for‑profit entity worth hundreds of billions — has direct implications for API pricing, model access, and the long‑term direction of the platform.

If Musk wins, the court could order an unwinding of the for‑profit conversion, though the practical mechanics of that are unclear. More likely, a Musk victory would force a renegotiated governance structure with stronger nonprofit oversight. That could mean more transparency on model capabilities, stricter constraints on how OpenAI monetizes its technology, and potentially more stable pricing for developers who have seen OpenAI double prices on some models while The New Stack reports the AI market is splitting into expensive premium models and cheap commodity ones.

If OpenAI wins, the nonprofit‑to‑for‑profit playbook becomes harder to challenge. As WIRED reports, former OpenAI employees and nonprofits have taken special interest in the case because the ruling could influence how the world’s leading AI developer controls and distributes its technology. The broader question: can any AI company founded with public‑interest commitments be trusted to honor them when the financial stakes reach the hundreds of billions?

Prediction market Kalshi currently puts Musk’s odds of winning at about 45%, according to Benzinga. Legal experts and the markets agree that Musk enters the courtroom as the underdog. The Wall Street Journal characterizes the case as an uphill battle, noting that Musk must convince a judge that a nonprofit conversion he was not present for violated a trust he helped create but subsequently walked away from.

Still, the judge’s pre‑trial comments suggest she considers the case serious. She found “ample evidence” supporting Musk’s claims and rejected “nearly every attempt by OpenAI and Microsoft to make the lawsuit disappear,” per TNW. Whatever the outcome, the trial will produce weeks of testimony and evidence about how one of the most powerful AI companies in the world was built — and what its founders really intended.