The courtroom battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI entered a more intense stage with tense exchanges during cross-examination. On the second day of the trial, Musk faced detailed questioning from OpenAI’s lawyers about old emails, internal decisions, and his role in shaping the company’s early direction. Musk pushed back on several points and maintained that OpenAI had drifted from its original non-profit mission, while also admitting there was no written agreement for his early funding in the Sam Altman-led firm.
The hearing, taking place in federal court in California, focused heavily on reconstructing the earliest phase of OpenAI, when it was founded in 2015 as a non-profit research lab. Musk, one of the key early backers along with Sam Altman and other Silicon Valley figures, testified that his financial contributions were made on the basis of shared intent rather than formal contractual obligations. That admission became a central legal pressure point, as OpenAI’s attorneys repeatedly stressed that no signed document guaranteed the governance or mission Musk now says was breached.
A significant portion of the day revolved around internal communications shown in court. OpenAI’s legal team presented emails and messages suggesting that discussions about scaling the organization, raising larger capital, and exploring hybrid structures existed far earlier than Musk’s departure in 2018. The defense argued that these communications weaken Musk’s claim that the organization suddenly ‘abandoned’ its founding principles. However, Musk insisted that early exploratory conversations about funding models were never meant to override the non-profit structure and that he did not interpret them as a formal shift in mission.
The questioning also turned to Musk’s level of involvement in OpenAI’s strategic direction. Attorneys attempted to establish whether he had influence over early operational decisions, including recruitment and long-term planning. Musk acknowledged being involved in discussions during the initial phase but argued that OpenAI was intended to be a collaborative effort among founders, not an entity controlled by any single individual. He maintained that his contribution – around $40 million – was made to support a public-interest project aimed at ensuring AI development remained safe and broadly beneficial.
One of the more contentious moments came when OpenAI’s lawyers probed Musk’s communications around the time he left the organization. They suggested that internal disagreements over leadership structure and computing resources played a role in his exit. Musk rejected that framing, arguing instead that his departure was driven by concerns that the organization was drifting toward commercialization and losing its original non-profit character.
Notably, on the first day of the trial, Elon Musk told the court that OpenAI’s shift under Sam Altman was like ‘stealing a charity’. As the case continues, the court is expected to hear additional testimony from former employees and Silicon Valley executives who were involved in the company’s early development. These witnesses are likely to provide further insight into how decisions were made during OpenAI’s formative years and whether there was ever a shared understanding of long-term mission commitments. Notably, Musk is seeking damages that could range from over $100 billion to as high as $180 billion. He is also demanding the removal of Sam Altman and other senior leaders, along with a push to restore OpenAI to a non-profit structure.
The Tech Portal is published by Blue Box Media Private Limited. Our investors have no influence over our reporting. Read our full Ownership and Funding Disclosure →
Ashutosh is a Senior Writer at The Tech Portal, largely reporting on new tech, and intersection of technology and business. Ashutosh’s career spans across nearly a decade of technology writing across multiple platforms and languages.
