Elon Musk tells court “You cannot steal a charity” as OpenAI trial with Sam Altman opens in California

One of the most closely watched legal battles in the technology world has formally begun, with Elon Musk and Sam Altman facing off in a California courtroom over the future and founding purpose of OpenAI.

The case centers on Musk’s allegation that OpenAI abandoned its original nonprofit mission and transformed into a profit driven company in a way that violated the principles on which it was created. During the first day of testimony, Musk delivered a direct and sharply worded criticism of the company he helped launch.

“It is not okay to steal a charity,” Musk told the court, arguing that if such conduct were accepted, it could damage trust in charitable giving more broadly.

According to Musk’s testimony, OpenAI was originally conceived as a nonprofit, open source organization designed to provide a responsible alternative to the growing power of large technology firms in artificial intelligence.

He said the initial vision was to create a research institution focused on safety and public benefit rather than commercial gain. Musk also argued that the company’s later restructuring moved too far away from that foundation.

His legal team framed the dispute as a matter of broken promises and breach of charitable trust, claiming the organization changed course after receiving support under a different mission.

Musk also described past conversations with Larry Page, saying disagreements over AI risk helped motivate the creation of OpenAI.

According to Musk, Page was less concerned about the dangers of advanced artificial intelligence, while Musk believed stronger safeguards were necessary. Musk said those conversations convinced him there was a need for an independent and open organization focused on safe development.

He further claimed that he helped shape the OpenAI name, recruited early talent and contributed initial funding during the company’s formative period.

In one of the most closely followed moments of the hearing, Musk warned that artificial intelligence could surpass human capability very soon.

He said AI may become smarter than any individual human in the near future and argued that leadership and governance therefore matter enormously.

Musk told the court that if such powerful technology is controlled by people who are not trustworthy, it could create risks far beyond any one company.

Though he did not directly name Altman in that portion of testimony, the comment was widely viewed as a pointed criticism of current OpenAI leadership.

Musk said he was open to a business model in which a for profit arm existed to support the nonprofit mission, provided control remained with the charitable side of the organization.

He explained that early discussions included ways to fund expensive AI research without allowing commercial interests to dominate the company’s direction.

According to Musk, he believed all founders were aligned that OpenAI would operate as a charitable organization under a nonprofit framework, with any business activities serving that purpose rather than replacing it.

Lawyers representing OpenAI strongly disputed Musk’s version of events.

In court, counsel for the company described the dispute as “a tale of two Elons,” arguing that Musk had previously supported commercial structures for OpenAI when he expected to retain influence.

They said Musk understood that advanced AI development required massive computing resources, elite research talent and long term capital commitments that a traditional nonprofit model could struggle to provide.

OpenAI lawyers also referenced past communications in which Musk allegedly suggested a standard corporation structure alongside a nonprofit entity.

The company’s legal team argued that Musk’s current position conflicts with ideas he once supported privately.

OpenAI’s lawyers also challenged Musk’s portrayal of his operational role during the company’s startup phase.

They argued that while Musk was an important early figure and funding supporter, he was not deeply involved in day to day management. During arguments, lawyers said he would occasionally visit and pressure team members to move faster.

The company further alleged that Musk later knew about restructuring plans and outside investments, including backing from Microsoft, yet waited years before bringing legal action.

That delay, OpenAI argues, weakens his claims that the restructuring was hidden or deceptive.

Musk’s legal team also accused Microsoft of assisting OpenAI in breaching duties tied to its original charitable purpose.

OpenAI rejected that argument, stating there was no evidence Microsoft was informed of any alleged restrictions that would make its partnership improper.

The relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft has become one of the most important alliances in the global AI race, making the issue especially significant beyond this courtroom dispute.

This lawsuit goes far beyond a personal clash between two high profile technology figures. It raises larger questions about how advanced AI companies should be governed, funded and held accountable.

Modern AI development requires enormous computing power, engineering talent and infrastructure spending. Critics say that can push mission driven labs toward corporate models. Supporters argue commercial structures are necessary to compete globally.

The trial could influence how future research organizations balance public interest goals with private capital.

The proceedings are taking place in the US District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

Jurors were questioned on their views regarding Musk, Altman and artificial intelligence before opening arguments began.

Both Musk and Altman attended the first day of hearings. Greg Brockman was also present in court.

Musk is reportedly seeking damages that could reach well above $100 billion under various claims. He has also pushed for structural remedies that may include leadership changes at OpenAI.

That means the final outcome could affect not only finances but also governance at one of the world’s most influential AI companies.

The first day of trial showed that this dispute is about more than contracts and corporate structure. It is a battle over competing visions of how transformative technology should be built.

Musk argues OpenAI moved away from a public interest mission. OpenAI says evolution was necessary to survive and lead in a fiercely competitive field.

With artificial intelligence now shaping economies, politics and everyday life, the court’s eventual decision may resonate far beyond Silicon Valley.