Elon Musk’s OpenAI trial has exploded into one of Silicon Valley’s most closely watched courtroom battles, with the billionaire telling a US court that his lawsuit is really about protecting charity, not just settling an old feud. On the stand in Tuesday’s hearing, Musk argued that OpenAI drifted far from the mission he says he helped create: a non-profit project meant to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity, not for private enrichment.
The case pits Musk against OpenAI, co-founder Sam Altman and company president Greg Brockman, and it goes to the heart of a bigger fight over who should control the future of artificial intelligence. For readers in South Africa watching the AI boom reshape everything from banking to customer service, the outcome matters far beyond California. The broader question is whether the world’s most powerful technology can still be governed in a way that serves the public first.
Musk, who also founded Tesla and SpaceX, told the court that OpenAI was his idea and that he personally helped get it off the ground. He said he helped name the venture, brought in early talent and backed the project financially because he believed it should operate as a genuine charity. In his words, he could have launched it as a for-profit business, but deliberately chose a structure that would not benefit any single individual.
His argument was blunt. “If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed,” Musk told the court, presenting the case as a warning shot against organisations that shift from public-interest ideals to commercial motives.
That framing is central to Elon Musk’s OpenAI trial, which is now drawing enormous attention because it combines high finance, AI dominance and a very public personal rivalry. Musk is accusing OpenAI of betraying its founding purpose by turning what he says was meant to be a benevolent non-profit into a profit-driven machine. He has also alleged breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, claims that could have wide implications if they gain traction.
OpenAI, however, is telling a very different story. In its opening statement, lawyer William Savitt argued that Musk himself was the one who saw the money opportunity and pushed for a business model that would attract investors and place him in a leadership role. According to the company’s legal team, Musk wanted “the keys to the kingdom”, and only turned hostile after he failed to get the control he wanted.
Savitt told jurors that OpenAI’s move toward a for-profit structure was not a betrayal, but a necessity. He said the company needed the funding to secure computing power and compete with rivals such as Google DeepMind. In the fast-moving AI race, scale matters, and OpenAI’s legal team is painting its shift as a practical step to survive in a brutally competitive market.
Elon Musk’s OpenAI trial turns on control, profit and AI power
The company’s lawyers also pushed back on Musk’s version of events by pointing to his own conduct after leaving OpenAI’s board. They noted that he later launched xAI in 2023, a rival AI venture that now sits within his wider business empire. To them, this is not a principled crusade against greed, but a fight by a man who simply wanted the upper hand in a sector he wants to dominate.
OpenAI’s legal team also highlighted the company’s formal shift in March 2019, when it created a for-profit entity. That step, they argued, was essential to raising capital, paying top researchers and keeping pace with rivals at a time when the costs of AI development were exploding. In modern AI, the company says, idealism alone does not build the infrastructure required to compete.
Musk’s own legal team offered the opposite picture. Steven Molo, representing the billionaire, told jurors that OpenAI and its backers were the ones chasing money. He argued the organisation was never supposed to become a place where investors and executives could get rich, and said Musk’s lawsuit is about restoring the original mission rather than claiming personal advantage.
The stakes are huge. Musk is seeking $150-billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, one of OpenAI’s biggest investors. He wants any proceeds to go to OpenAI’s charitable arm and is also asking the court to force the company to become a non-profit again. He wants Altman and Brockman removed from their executive posts, and Altman off the board as well.
For the court, this is not just a corporate dispute. It is a messy, public test of how much weight should be given to founding promises once a technology company starts attracting billions in capital. That tension is especially relevant in a world where AI tools are being embedded into everyday platforms used by South African consumers, companies and government departments.
Before the jury was seated, US district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also took issue with Musk’s behaviour on social media. OpenAI’s lawyers complained about posts on X in which Musk called Altman “Scam Altman” and accused him of stealing a charity. Rogers said she did not want to impose a gag order, but warned Musk to “try to control your propensity to use social media to make things work outside the courtroom”.
Musk agreed to tone down his online activity, and Altman made a similar undertaking. The judge’s comments underline just how closely this case is being watched, and how easily the dispute spills beyond the courtroom and into the public arena.
The trial is far from over. Musk is expected to continue testifying on Wednesday, while Altman and Microsoft chief Satya Nadella are also expected to take the stand. Musk has said he contributed about $38-million to OpenAI’s early mission and used his contacts to help provide computing resources, including speaking directly with Nadella and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.
For now, the courtroom fight is shaping up as a battle over memory, motive and money. Musk says he built OpenAI to serve humanity. OpenAI says he wanted control and influence. As we reported earlier, the case may ultimately decide not just who gets the last word in a bitter feud, but how the world remembers one of the most consequential AI companies ever created.