Elon Musk told a federal courtroom Tuesday that the leaders of OpenAI and their partner Microsoft "stole a charity," taking the witness stand in a blockbuster trial that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence and the legal boundaries of nonprofit governance.
The testimony came in an Oakland, California, federal court as part of a lawsuit Musk filed in 2024 against OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman, co-founder Greg Brockman, and Microsoft. Musk alleges the trio betrayed OpenAI's founding purpose as a nonprofit built to develop AI safely for the benefit of humanity, transforming it instead into a profit-seeking enterprise. He is seeking $150 billion in damages, with proceeds directed to OpenAI's charitable arm, and wants Altman removed from the company's board.
On the stand, Musk tried to cut through what he predicted would be a complicated defense. As Courthouse News reported, Musk delivered a direct opening message to the jury.
"Fundamentally, I think they're going to try to make this lawsuit very complicated, but it's actually very simple. Which is that it's not OK to steal a charity."
That line captured the core of Musk's legal theory: that OpenAI was created as a public-interest venture, funded in part by his own donations, and that its leadership had no right to convert it into a for-profit company without honoring the original mission. Breitbart reported that Musk is seeking both monetary damages and structural relief, including forcing OpenAI to revert to nonprofit status.
Musk's attorney, Steven Molo, reinforced the framing during opening statements. He told the jury that "the defendants in the case stole a charity, and we're asking you to hold them accountable," as Newsmax reported.
Musk did not limit his testimony to corporate governance. He used his time on the stand to warn the court about what he described as the existential dangers of unchecked artificial intelligence, telling the jury he holds "extreme concerns" about the technology's trajectory.
"It could kill us all."
That blunt assessment, reported by the Washington Examiner, was paired with a pop-culture reference that landed squarely on the stakes Musk wanted jurors to feel. "We don't want to have a Terminator outcome," he testified, contrasting that dystopian scenario with a more hopeful "Star Trek" future where AI serves human progress.
The warnings were not tangential to the legal claims. Musk's argument rests partly on the idea that OpenAI's nonprofit structure was designed as a safeguard, a way to ensure that the most powerful AI systems ever built would be developed with public accountability rather than shareholder returns driving decisions. If the jury accepts that framing, the shift to a for-profit model becomes not just a breach of charitable purpose but a removal of safety guardrails on a technology Musk described as potentially lethal.
Musk, who also runs xAI, a competing artificial intelligence company, has positioned himself as one of the loudest voices in the tech world on AI risk. His broader public influence and political activity have made him a polarizing figure, but his concerns about AI safety predate his current political profile by years.
OpenAI's defense team wasted no time offering a sharply different narrative. Attorney William Savitt told the jury that Musk's motives had nothing to do with protecting a nonprofit mission.
"We are here because Mr. Musk didn't get his way with OpenAI."
That line, delivered during opening statements, signaled a defense built around the idea that Musk is driven by personal resentment and competitive self-interest. OpenAI's legal team argued that Musk wanted control over the organization, failed to get it, and launched a rival AI company before filing suit. The defense contends the lawsuit is less about charitable principles and more about a billionaire who lost a power struggle and decided to litigate.
The Washington Times noted that the trial carries stakes well beyond the two men at its center. The outcome could set precedent for how nonprofits transition to for-profit structures, how donor intent is enforced, and whether courts will intervene to police the governance of organizations working on frontier technology.
At its core, the case asks a federal court to decide whether OpenAI's leadership had the authority to restructure the organization away from its founding nonprofit charter. Musk's complaint names Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft as defendants, alleging they collectively engineered a betrayal of the donors and the public who supported OpenAI's original mission.
The lawsuit seeks two forms of relief. First, Musk wants $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the money directed to OpenAI's charitable arm rather than to Musk personally. Second, he wants the court to order OpenAI back to nonprofit status and to remove Altman from the board.
If Musk prevails, the ruling could send a warning to every nonprofit in America that transitions to a for-profit model: donor intent matters, and courts will enforce it. If OpenAI wins, the case may confirm that organizational leadership retains broad discretion to restructure, even when the original mission was framed in humanitarian terms.
Musk is no stranger to courtroom scrutiny. A California jury previously found his tweets misleading in a case tied to the Twitter acquisition, though it rejected the broader fraud claim. His willingness to take the stand in the OpenAI case suggests confidence in his version of events, but it also exposes him to cross-examination on his own motives, his departure from OpenAI's board, and the competitive threat his xAI venture poses to Altman's company.
The trial will require jurors to weigh competing accounts of why OpenAI changed course. Musk's team will argue the shift was a betrayal engineered for profit. OpenAI's lawyers will argue the transition was a legitimate business evolution that Musk resented because he was not in charge of it.
Investigators and the court will need to examine internal communications, board decisions, and the terms under which Microsoft invested in OpenAI. Authorities have not publicly confirmed the full scope of internal deliberations that led to the restructuring, and the trial is expected to surface documents and testimony that shed light on those decisions.
The broader tech and legal worlds are watching closely. The case sits at the intersection of nonprofit law, corporate governance, and the regulation of artificial intelligence, three areas where the legal framework is still catching up to the pace of technological change. Conservative observers have noted that the case also raises questions about institutional accountability, a theme that resonates beyond Silicon Valley. The FTC's recent enforcement actions against institutional misconduct in other sectors reflect a growing appetite for holding powerful organizations to their stated commitments.
The Oakland courtroom is now the stage for a fight over something larger than two tech titans and their rivalry. The question before the jury is whether the most influential AI company in the world was built on a promise to serve humanity, and whether that promise can be broken without consequence.
Musk framed the stakes in the starkest terms he could. If looting a charity becomes acceptable, he told the court, "the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed." OpenAI's lawyers called that framing self-serving theater from a competitor who wanted the keys and did not get them.
Both sides agree on one thing: the outcome of this trial will matter far beyond the courtroom. How far beyond may depend on whether a jury believes a charity was stolen or a grudge was dressed up in a lawsuit.
