OpenAI faces uncertain future as trial reaches final stage

The future of OpenAI and its senior leadership now hinges on the final stage of a long-running lawsuit brought by co-founder Elon Musk. The high-profile legal clash between Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has exposed deep divisions within the AI industry and raised major questions about OpenAI’s future direction.

The closely watched federal court trial focused on Musk’s allegation that Altman and OpenAI abandoned the company’s original nonprofit mission and transformed it into a profit-oriented enterprise. Musk argued that the shift betrayed the founding vision he helped establish, while Altman rejected the claims and defended OpenAI’s expansion strategy, as American media cited.

After weeks of testimony, which concluded this week, a nine-member jury has retired to deliberate at a US federal courthouse in Oakland, California. The final ruling, however, will ultimately be made by the judge overseeing the case.

The proceedings stem from Musk’s 2024 lawsuit, in which he accused his fellow OpenAI co-founders of defrauding him. Musk claimed Altman “stole a charity” by reshaping OpenAI into a company closely tied to powerful corporate investors.

The lawsuit also named Microsoft as a co-defendant after the tech giant invested billions of dollars into OpenAI. Musk argued that Microsoft supported Altman’s alleged efforts to commercialize the organization.

Microsoft in the crosshairs

Several prominent witnesses challenged Musk’s allegations during the trial, including OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

At the same time, Altman also faced intense scrutiny throughout the proceedings, with Musk’s legal team repeatedly questioning his credibility during cross-examination.

The trial also shed new light on the chaotic events of late 2023, when Altman was briefly removed by OpenAI’s nonprofit board before being reinstated days later with Microsoft’s backing.

Musk’s lawyers argued that the episode demonstrated Microsoft now effectively holds veto power over OpenAI’s major decisions, turning what was originally a “charity” into what they described as a closed-source subsidiary of a tech giant.

OpenAI, meanwhile, presented evidence claiming that Musk’s initial $44 million in donations had been fully spent on research before the company transitioned toward a for-profit structure. The company argued that Musk’s original charitable intentions had therefore been honored before OpenAI changed its corporate model.

During earlier testimony, Musk told the court he had been “tricked” into providing the funding and prestige needed to attract top AI talent, only to later see Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman “strip-mine” the technology for private gain.

Musk said his concerns hardened into “conviction” after Microsoft announced a $10 billion investment in OpenAI in 2023. He testified that OpenAI had become a “de facto closed-source subsidiary” of Microsoft focused on commercializing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) rather than ensuring it remained safe and broadly accessible.

Who steers the ship?

Former OpenAI executives and board members also described moments when they believed Altman withheld important information from colleagues.

The trial further examined Altman’s outside financial interests, including his ties to nuclear energy startup Helion Energy. Lawyers questioned whether Altman’s involvement with Helion posed a conflict of interest after OpenAI signed a power agreement with the company. Altman reportedly holds a stake in Helion valued at more than $1.5 billion.

Altman, however, offered a sharply different account during his testimony, portraying Musk as a leader seeking overwhelming control over OpenAI.

According to Altman, Musk once demanded a 90% ownership stake in OpenAI and proposed merging the company with Tesla — an idea Altman said he rejected because “Tesla is a car company and does not have the mission of OpenAI.”

In one of the trial’s most widely discussed exchanges, Altman recalled asking Musk what would happen to his controlling stake if he died. Musk allegedly replied that control could pass to his children. Altman told jurors the comment felt “extremely uncomfortable” because it conflicted with OpenAI’s original goal of preventing AGI from falling under the control of any single individual or family.

If Musk ultimately prevails in the case, OpenAI could face damages of up to $150 billion and may be forced to remove both Altman and Brockman from leadership positions.

By Nazrin Sadigova