OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has pushed back hard against Elon Musk’s claim that he betrayed the ChatGPT maker’s original mission, telling a US court that it was actually Musk who wanted to seize control of the company and cash in on its future. The testimony, delivered in federal court in Oakland, California, adds fresh fuel to one of the most consequential legal fights in the global AI industry — and one that could shape the future of OpenAI, its leadership, and even the structure of the company itself.
The dispute is no small matter. Musk’s lawsuit, filed in August 2024, accuses Altman and OpenAI of convincing him to help fund the startup with US$38-million, only for the organisation to drift away from its non-profit roots and evolve into a profit-driven business. OpenAI says that version of events is simply wrong. The company argues Musk knew exactly what was being planned before he stepped away from its board in 2018, and that his court action is really about regrets over missing out on the upside.
What makes this case especially significant is the timing. OpenAI is now preparing for a possible initial public offering, with a valuation that could reach US$1-trillion. That alone would make the company one of the most valuable firms on the planet. But the trial, now in its third week, may influence whether that path remains open — and who gets to steer the ship if it does.
Under questioning from his lawyer, William Savitt, Altman flatly rejected Musk’s allegation that he and OpenAI president Greg Brockman tried to “steal a charity”. Altman said that framing was so far off base that he could hardly process it, and added that he hoped the company’s non-profit arm would continue to benefit as OpenAI grows. In other words, he is insisting the mission has not been abandoned, but rather reshaped.
Musk’s team, however, is going for the jugular. Their legal strategy has centred on portraying Altman as someone who cannot be trusted with the future of artificial intelligence. Musk himself testified early in the trial, warning that placing an untrustworthy person in charge of AI would be dangerous for the entire world. That message has clearly been designed to resonate far beyond Silicon Valley.
The case has become a heavyweight contest between two of the most recognisable figures in tech. Musk is presenting himself as the principled outsider, the man supposedly standing up to powerful interests and defending the public from the risks of AI. Altman, meanwhile, is being cast by Musk’s lawyers as a businessman who has strayed from the ideals OpenAI was built on.
Sam Altman and Elon Musk face off in the OpenAI legal battle
Altman told the court that Musk was not the anti-profit crusader his legal team is trying to make him out to be. According to Altman, Musk was in fact pushing for a structure that would have given him enormous control over OpenAI. At one stage, Altman said, Musk wanted a 90% stake in the company. He described that as deeply uncomfortable, even as the demands reportedly shifted over time.
He also drew on his own experience in start-ups to explain why he resisted that level of control. Altman said he had seen enough power struggles in the tech world to know how quickly things can go sideways when founders try to lock down permanent authority. He specifically referenced SpaceX, saying successful founders often consolidate control to keep their grip on a company.
Altman also testified that OpenAI leaders were keen to keep Musk onside, but not at any cost. He said he was open to working with Musk, yet drew the line at a merger with Tesla, arguing that such a move would have put OpenAI’s mission at risk. Tesla, he said, has to serve customers and sell cars, while OpenAI’s purpose is fundamentally different.
That difference has become a central theme in the trial. OpenAI was co-founded in 2015 by a group that included both Musk and Altman. But the company has long argued that Musk was aware of the plan to create a for-profit entity before leaving the board. OpenAI later set up its for-profit arm in March 2019, a step Musk now says betrayed the original vision.
The courtroom exchanges have not been gentle. During a combative cross-examination, Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, questioned Altman’s honesty by pointing to testimony from a former OpenAI board member who described a “toxic culture of lying”, as well as comments from seven former OpenAI officials who said Altman was not trustworthy. Altman rejected the suggestion that he had misled people in business, saying he believed he was honest and trustworthy, but stopping short of conceding the point when pressed.
Altman also told the court that Musk’s departure from OpenAI created mixed emotions inside the organisation. Some worried it could hurt funding, while others were reportedly relieved to be free of Musk’s habit of demanding regular explanations of research progress. Altman went further, saying Musk did not understand how to run a good research lab and had demotivated some of the company’s most important researchers.
That is a striking accusation in a case already packed with personal and commercial tension. It suggests the breakup was not simply about money or ideology, but also about leadership style, culture and control — all of which sit at the heart of the modern AI race. For investors and regulators watching from the sidelines, the outcome could say a lot about who gets to set the rules for this technology.
The courtroom drama also widened on Tuesday when OpenAI chair Bret Taylor testified separately that the company received a formal takeover offer in February 2025 from a consortium led by Musk’s rival company xAI, six months after Musk launched the lawsuit. Taylor said he was surprised by the move, describing it as strange that a group of for-profit investors would seek to acquire a non-profit in a case supposedly built around protecting the non-profit mission.
That detail may prove important. It gives OpenAI ammunition to argue that Musk’s legal stance is inconsistent with his business actions. If he truly believes the non-profit mission has been undermined, the question becomes why his side was willing to pursue an acquisition proposal that appears to cut across that very principle.
For now, the trial remains a high-stakes fight over history, intent and control. But it is also about the future of AI, the role of profit in breakthrough research, and whether the people building these systems can be trusted to keep their promises. As we continue following the case, one thing is clear: this is far more than a personal feud between two billionaires. It is a battle that could help determine who shapes the next era of artificial intelligence — and on what terms.