OpenAI trial begins as jury weighs Musk’s nonprofit mission claim

The Split-Screen Moment That Defined a Rivalry

The courtroom in Oakland stands in contrast to the stages where Sam Altman and Elon Musk once appeared together. In November 2023, Altman spoke at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco, presenting a vision of AI as a collaborative global endeavor. Months earlier, Musk addressed the VivaTech conference in Paris, emphasizing the risks associated with artificial intelligence. The differences in their presentations reflected broader divergences in their approaches to the technology.

Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015, contributing $38 million to establish it as a nonprofit with a mission to develop AI for the benefit of humanity. By 2018, he had left the board, and by 2023, he had launched xAI, a competing venture. His lawsuit seeks to reverse OpenAI’s restructuring, remove Altman and President Greg Brockman from their positions, and secure damages for what he describes as a departure from the organization’s original purpose.

OpenAI has dismissed the lawsuit as without merit. The trial, which began with opening arguments this week, raises a question rarely addressed in public: When a nonprofit transitions to a for-profit model, who determines whether its founding mission has been compromised?

The Jury’s Unusual Role—and the Judge’s Unconventional Trial

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers structured the trial in two phases: the first to assess liability, and the second to determine remedies. The jury’s role is advisory, with their findings intended to inform the judge’s final decision. This approach reflects the complexity of the case, which involves both legal and ethical considerations.

During jury selection, Gonzalez Rogers acknowledged the challenges of the case, noting that prospective jurors had expressed strong opinions about the parties involved. She emphasized the importance of focusing on the evidence presented. The trial’s structure allows for a detailed examination of Musk’s claims, which have evolved over time. Initially, his legal team sought the removal of Altman and Brockman, later requesting damages and proposing that any financial award be directed to OpenAI’s nonprofit entity.

The $134 Billion Question: What Does Musk’s Lawsuit Seek?

Musk’s lawsuit centers on the claim that OpenAI, Altman, and Brockman misled him about the company’s transition to a for-profit model. His legal team has argued for damages of up to $134 billion, a figure that exceeds OpenAI’s valuation and underscores the significance of the dispute.

For more on this story, see Title: Judge Dismisses Musk’s Fraud Claims Against OpenAI, Sets Trial for Breach of Charitable Trust and Unjust Enrichment Claims; Jury Selection Begins Monday as Musk Seeks $150B in Damages.

Musk has since indicated that any damages should be allocated to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm rather than to him personally. This adjustment complicates the interpretation of his motives. OpenAI’s attorneys have characterized the lawsuit as a diversion, offering limited public details about their defense. Legal experts have noted that Musk’s case presents unusual challenges. Jill Horwitz, a law professor at Northwestern University, observed that donors or former board members typically do not have standing to bring such claims, which are usually handled by state attorneys general.

In October 2025, regulators in California and Delaware approved OpenAI’s restructuring under specific conditions, suggesting that the transition was viewed as a compliance matter rather than an act of deception. Musk’s lawsuit challenges this interpretation, arguing that the company’s leaders misled him and the public about their intentions.

The Credibility War: Texts, Trust, and a Personal Conduit

The trial has brought to light communications that highlight the intersection of personal and professional relationships. Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI board member and a figure with personal ties to Musk, has emerged as a central figure in the case. A 2018 text exchange between Zilis and Musk revealed discussions about maintaining a connection with OpenAI to facilitate information sharing. Musk’s response suggested an interest in recruiting personnel from OpenAI to Tesla.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the relationship between Musk and Zilis was relevant to assessing Zilis’s credibility and her role as a liaison between Musk and OpenAI. The judge also permitted questioning about Musk’s attendance at the 2017 Burning Man festival, determining it was pertinent to his level of engagement in OpenAI’s restructuring negotiations.

Additional evidence includes a 2016 email exchange between Musk and Altman, where they discussed potential partnerships with major tech companies to secure computing resources. In one message, Musk made a critical remark about Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. More recently, a text exchange between Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg surfaced, in which Musk proposed bidding on OpenAI’s intellectual property. Zuckerberg’s response indicated a willingness to discuss the matter further.

These exchanges illustrate the close ties between personal relationships and professional strategies in the tech industry. They also raise questions about whether a jury can fully disentangle the motivations and commitments that led to the current legal dispute.

What to Watch as the Trial Unfolds

The liability phase of the trial is expected to conclude by May 21, with Judge Gonzalez Rogers issuing her final ruling in the following months.

The jury’s advisory findings. While not binding, their assessment of whether OpenAI’s leaders misled Musk could inform the judge’s decision on the company’s adherence to its original mission.

The testimony of key witnesses. Altman, Brockman, and Musk are scheduled to testify, along with former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, former CTO Mira Murati, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Their accounts of OpenAI’s evolution may shape the judge’s perspective on the case.

The legal implications. A ruling in Musk’s favor could encourage similar challenges to nonprofit governance, while a decision for OpenAI might reinforce the industry’s flexibility in adapting business models.

The broader impact. The trial offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the AI industry, with potential revelations about internal conflicts, strategic shifts, and personal dynamics influencing public perception of the technology.

The proceedings in Oakland extend beyond the dispute between Musk and OpenAI. They test whether the commitments made by tech leaders can be legally enforced and whether the public has a meaningful role in shaping the development and governance of artificial intelligence. The jury’s advisory role and the judge’s final decision will signal how such disputes may be resolved in the future.