Key Facts
- On April 29, 2026, Elon Musk was cross-examined by OpenAI attorney William Savitt during his lawsuit trial over OpenAI's for-profit conversion in Oakland, California.1
- Elon Musk accused OpenAI and its executives of deceiving him into donating money to help found a major AI company, and named Microsoft as a co-defendant for aiding OpenAI’s breach of charitable trust.1
- Musk testified that he was fine with OpenAI having a for-profit subsidiary as long as it didn’t “overtake” the nonprofit, which he argued it ultimately did.
2
- Elon Musk expressed concern that he “did not read the fine print” regarding OpenAI's plans to raise $10 billion in funding.
- Elon Musk stated that his race to build a better AI than Google was a motivating factor in his funding of OpenAI.1
- Musk noted concerns about DeepMind, stating it was moving very fast and that he was worried OpenAI wasn't keeping pace.1
- Elon Musk claims OpenAI CEO Sam Altman betrayed public trust by enriching himself through the artificial intelligence company they founded together in 2015 as a nonprofit venture.
- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers reminded Musk’s attorney that AI itself is not on trial, stating, "It’s ironic your client, despite these risks, is creating a company that is in the exact space."
- Musk demands an estimated $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, a co-defendant and one of OpenAI’s top financial backers.
- Musk never fulfilled his $1 billion commitment to the company — which Musk also confirmed in court this week.
- Musk, who said Wednesday that he deliberately chose to create OpenAI "as a nonprofit for the public good," launched his own for-profit AI company, xAI, in 2023.
- Musk testified that he has never directed X’s algorithm to deboost OpenAI’s account.
- Musk noted Wednesday that he didn’t follow through on his original $1 billion promise because he “lost confidence in the team.”
- Musk said Thursday that he gifted the Teslas as “appreciation for the hard work and sacrifice of people at OpenAI, the charity, who had taken salaries much less than if they had worked at a for-profit.”