Musk vs. Altman OpenAI Trial: Week One Recap
Musk vs. Altman OpenAI Trial Kicks Off With Three Days of Explosive Testimony
The long-anticipated legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman moved from courtroom filings to live testimony this week, as the trial officially got underway at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. Over three days — April 28 through April 30, 2026 — Musk spent the better part of the week on the witness stand, setting the stage for what is expected to be one of the most consequential technology trials in recent memory. The case pits Musk against Altman, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, and Microsoft, in a dispute over whether the company's transformation from a nonprofit into a for-profit enterprise constitutes a betrayal of its founding mission.
At its core, Musk's lawsuit — filed in 2024 — alleges that Altman and Brockman unjustly enriched themselves when they steered OpenAI away from its origins as a charitable organization, a mission Musk says he helped fund to the tune of approximately $38 million between December 2015 and May 2017. OpenAI is now valued at $852 billion. Musk is seeking the return of all "ill-gotten gains" to OpenAI's charitable foundation, the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership, and a reversion to nonprofit status. He also named Microsoft as a co-defendant, accusing the company of aiding and abetting OpenAI's breach of charitable trust.
Nine jurors from across the greater Bay Area were seated on Monday, April 27, ahead of opening statements and testimony. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is presiding over the case, which is expected to last approximately four weeks in total.
Opening Statements Set a Combative Tone
The trial opened with sharp rhetoric from both sides. Musk's lead attorney, Steve Molo, framed the case in stark moral terms in his opening statement: "Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today because the defendants in this case stole a charity."
OpenAI's lead attorney, William Savitt, pushed back with equal force, telling the jury: "We are here because Mr. Musk didn't get his way with OpenAI."
That tension carried through Musk's nearly two hours of direct examination on the first day of testimony, during which he covered his history as a tech entrepreneur, his early concerns about the trajectory of artificial intelligence, and his motivations for co-founding OpenAI with Altman and others in 2015. Musk testified that he co-founded the organization as a nonprofit specifically to keep advanced AI out of the hands of a single commercial entity — a category that, he now argues, OpenAI itself has become.
"It was obviously started as a nonprofit in the founding charter. It says it will not be to the financial benefit of any one person. You just can't steal a charity, and that's what it comes down to," Musk said on the stand, according to NBC News.
He was equally blunt about his personal financial stake: "I thought I had started a nonprofit with OpenAI but they stole it," Musk testified, according to ABC7 News.
Cross-Examination Turns Up the Heat — Emails, Texts, and a Term Sheet
By Wednesday, April 30 — Day 3 of testimony — OpenAI attorney William Savitt had turned to documentary evidence in an effort to undercut Musk's narrative. Savitt presented Musk with emails and text messages from 2018 in which Sam Altman had attempted to inform Musk about OpenAI's plans to secure additional funding from Microsoft. Crucially, Musk testified that he "did not read the fine print" of a term sheet that explicitly stated OpenAI aimed to raise $10 billion.
Savitt also suggested that Musk's departure from OpenAI's board in February 2018 was not a voluntary exit over philosophical differences, but rather the result of Musk being blocked from taking unilateral control of the company. Musk denied this, saying he left to focus on his other companies. The cross-examination grew visibly tense at points, with Musk at one stage telling Savitt: "Your questions are not simple. They are designed to trick me, essentially."
Savitt also delivered a pointed characterization of his opponent's motivations: "What he cares about is Elon Musk being at the top."
According to CNBC, Musk acknowledged that Microsoft's $10 billion investment in OpenAI — announced in 2022 and made when the company was valued at $20 billion — was a tipping point, and that he had lost trust in Sam Altman by late that year. Musk also testified that he left OpenAI's board in 2018 following a number of disagreements, including a failed effort to merge OpenAI with Tesla.
On Thursday, April 30, Judge Gonzalez Rogers excused Musk from the witness stand, though he may be called back later in the proceedings. The judge herself delivered a notable observation during testimony, telling lawyers: "It's ironic your client, despite these risks, is creating a company that is in the exact space" — a reference to Musk's own AI venture, xAI.
What's at Stake: An IPO, Leadership, and the Future of AI Governance
The implications of this trial extend well beyond the two principals. OpenAI has been on an aggressive growth trajectory, and a ruling in Musk's favor could significantly disrupt the company's anticipated IPO by forcing a structural overhaul. Musk is seeking the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership entirely, as well as the reversion of all "ill-gotten gains" to OpenAI's charitable foundation. He previously sought up to $134 billion in damages personally before narrowing his ask to the return of gains to the nonprofit.
OpenAI lawyers have rejected these claims, arguing that company leaders never promised OpenAI would remain a nonprofit forever, and that Musk himself discussed and supported a for-profit structure — only objecting after he lost influence over the organization's direction.
The legal standing question looms over the entire proceeding. Jill Horwitz, a law professor who studies nonprofit law, told MIT Technology Review: "The idea that Elon Musk can sue because he was a donor or used to be on the board is pretty puzzling." State attorneys general — not individual donors — typically hold authority to enforce charitable trust obligations. California's attorney general declined to join Musk's lawsuit, stating the office did not see how his action serves the public interest. Separately, in October 2025, the attorneys general of both California and Delaware struck a deal with OpenAI to approve its new corporate structure under a series of conditions.
The competitive context is also impossible to ignore. Musk launched xAI, his own artificial intelligence company, which competes directly in the same space as OpenAI. That fact was not lost on Judge Gonzalez Rogers, whose observation from the bench underscored the layered personal and commercial stakes on both sides of the aisle.
Expert Reactions: A "Tech Soap Opera" With Real Consequences
Observers watching the trial have been candid about its unusual nature. Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush, captured the spectacle with characteristic bluntness: "This is a tech soap opera that all investors will be watching as Musk vs Altman enters the MMA ring."
The courtroom drama has been fueled not just by live testimony, but by the documentary trail being introduced into evidence — emails, texts, and Musk's own public statements over the years, all of which both sides are deploying to construct competing narratives about who OpenAI was built for, and who ultimately benefited.
What Comes Next
With Musk off the stand for now, the trial moves into a phase that could be equally revealing. Future witnesses expected to testify include Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and several key researchers and engineers involved in OpenAI's founding. Jared Birchall, who manages Musk's family office and also serves as an executive at xAI and Neuralink, was scheduled to testify immediately following Musk.
Altman's testimony will be closely watched. OpenAI's defense rests heavily on the argument that the for-profit transition was both foreseeable and necessary to raise the capital required to build frontier AI systems — and that Musk, had he remained involved, would have benefited from it. How Altman presents that case under direct and cross-examination will likely shape the trial's narrative in the weeks ahead.
The case is proceeding before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is expected to run for approximately four weeks in total.
For more tech news, visit our news section.
What This Means for You
The Musk vs. Altman trial is more than a legal dispute between billionaires — it is a live stress test of how the most powerful AI systems in the world are governed, funded, and controlled. The outcome could reshape the leadership and structure of a company whose tools tens of millions of people use daily for work, research, and decision-making. Understanding where AI is headed, who controls it, and how those decisions affect your productivity and wellbeing has never been more important. Moccet is built to help you stay informed and make smarter decisions in an increasingly AI-driven world. Join the Moccet waitlist to stay ahead of the curve.