The $852 Billion ‘Charity’: Musk Vs. Altman Heads To The Jury

InnovationConsumer TechThe $852 Billion ‘Charity’: Musk Vs. Altman Heads To The JuryByAnisha Sircar, Contributor. Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights. Anisha Sircar is a journalist covering tech, finance and society.Follow AuthorMay 16, 2026, 05:47am EDT--:-- / --:--This voice experience is generated by AI. Learn more.This voice experience is generated by AI. Learn more.SummaryThe high-stakes trial of Elon Musk v. Sam Altman and Greg Brockman is heading to jury deliberations Monday in Oakland. Musk alleges Altman and Brockman betrayed OpenAI's nonprofit mission, enriching themselves and Microsoft. He seeks up to $150 billion in damages, the unwinding of OpenAI's for-profit restructuring, and their removal, potentially derailing a $1 trillion IPO. Testimony revealed Musk's initial $38 million donation, his unfulfilled $1 billion pledge, and his claims of a "stolen charity." OpenAI countered that Musk is driven by jealousy and regret. Witnesses included Brockman, whose journals showed wealth aspirations, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who criticized OpenAI's 2023 board actions. Sam Altman defended OpenAI's evolution, accusing Musk of abandoning the charity and seeking control. The jury's verdict is advisory, with the judge making the final decision, which could reshape the AI landscape. Show More TOPSHOT - Inflatable punching bags with added pictures of Elon Musk and Sam Altman are seen outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and US Courthouse as the Musk v. Altman trial begins in Oakland, California, on April 27, 2026. While the lawsuit filed by Musk is part of a feud between him and OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, it spotlights a debate whether AI should ultimately benefit the privileged few or society as a whole. (Photo by Karl Mondon / AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty ImagesThe jury in the closely watched Elon Musk et al. v. Sam Altman et al. will begin deliberations on Monday at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California. What they are weighing, and what Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide, is whether Sam Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman betrayed the nonprofit mission of the company they co-founded with Musk in 2015, enriching themselves and Microsoft in the process. The verdict is advisory — the judge is the one with the final say. Up to $150 billion in damages is on the table to be redirected to OpenAI’s nonprofit foundation, as well as the forced unwinding of OpenAI’s 2025 for-profit restructuring and the removal of both Altman and Brockman from their leadership roles — any of which could derail what is expected to be one of the largest IPOs in tech history, with OpenAI eyeing a valuation approaching $1 trillion. Here is what happened and what it revealed. A brief backstory Musk co-founded OpenAI alongside Altman, Brockman and others in 2015 as a nonprofit focused on developing AI for humanity’s benefit. He donated approximately $38 million to the company, fell out with the other founders over control and left the board in February 2018. (Now, the world’s richest man has accused Altman and another OpenAI co-founder of trying to “steal a charity.”) OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary shortly after his departure, raised billions from Microsoft and others, and in October 2025 completed a full restructuring into a public benefit corporation — still overseen by the nonprofit foundation but no longer a capped-profit entity. The company is valued at $852 billion. MORE FOR YOUMusk filed suit in 2024, alleging breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. In January this year, Musk’s lawyers said their client was entitled to up to $134 billion in damages — and more recently his team has argued any “ill-gotten gains” should be returned to the nonprofit. OpenAI’s position is that Musk is “motivated by jealousy, regret for walking away from OpenAI and a desire to derail a competing AI company.” Week one: Musk on the standMusk was the first witness called — which is rather unusual for a plaintiff — and spent the bulk of the opening week testifying, often combatively. He described his $38 million as funding a charity for humanity’s benefit, accused Altman and Brockman of “stealing” it, and told jurors the consequences of the case “go far beyond me.” He predicted AI will surpass human intelligence “as soon as next year” and said he’d tried to warn President Obama of the risks years ago, to little effect. The cross-examination was also frequently heated. Musk accused OpenAI’s attorney William Savitt — who also represented Twitter during its legal battle with Musk — of asking misleading questions “designed to trick” him and the jury. Judge Gonzalez Rogers intervened multiple times. Musk acknowledged he never fulfilled his $1 billion pledge to OpenAI, donating roughly $38 million in total. The judge also seemed to reject Musk’s attempts to situate the trial around AI’s existential risks to humanity, telling his lawyers, “It’s ironic your client, despite these risks, is creating a company in the exact same space.” The night before testimony began, Musk had reached out to Brockman in what began as a settlement feeler. When Brockman suggested both sides drop their claims, the conversation culminated in Musk reportedly replying, “By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.” (Sound familiar from the Twitter takeover saga?) The exchange was ruled inadmissible. Week two: Paper trailBrockman’s journalsOpenAI president Greg Brockman kept a personal diary, and his legal team had to produce it. Read aloud in federal court, the entries showed Brockman wondering in 2017 whether OpenAI really wanted to be “the people who bring Elon to control of the AGI” while also noting of Musk: “he is [expletive] famous. he’s got the resources. and he is smart.” A separate entry from the same year asked: “Financially, what will take me to $1B?” His stake in OpenAI is now worth approximately $30 billion. Musk’s attorney pressed him on the discrepancy between mission rhetoric and personal enrichment. Brockman described the entries as expressions of frustration, never intended for public view. Mira Murati’s textsMeanwhile, Former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati testified about safety concerns she had with Altman’s decision-making, including a claim that Altman said GPT-4 Turbo did not need deployment-safety-board review. Her private texts with Altman during the chaotic week of his 2023 firing became one of the trial’s viral moments (and there were so many) — her message describing the situation as “directionally very bad” and saying Altman would be replaced by “rando Twitch guy” (Emmett Shear, Twitch's then-CEO, who briefly held the OpenAI CEO role) circulated widely and inspired AI-generated songs. Shivon Zilis The testimony of Shivon Zilis — senior Musk adviser, former OpenAI board member and mother of four of his children — showed how thoroughly personal and professional relationships overlapped inside early OpenAI. After Musk left the board in 2018, Zilis apparently continued acting as a conduit, texting him to ask whether she should “stay close and friendly with OpenAI to keep info flowing or begin to disassociate.” Musk told her to stay close. OpenAI’s lawyers argued that while serving on the board, Zilis knew Musk was planning a rival AI company before it became public knowledge. Zilis testified that her relationship with Musk did not affect her conduct as a board member. Week three: Altman, Nadella & the donkey trophySatya Nadella Microsoft’s CEO arrived for Monday morning testimony last week having reportedly been seen pacing in the courthouse hallways beforehand. He described Microsoft’s early investment in OpenAI as a genuine financial risk nobody else was willing to take, denied ever demanding Altman’s reinstatement after the 2023 board crisis and characterised the board’s handling of that episode without mincing words. “It was sort of amateur city as far as I’m concerned.” On Musk’s concerns: “We have each other’s phone numbers. He never called.” Internal Microsoft emails from 2018 presented in court complicated the warm partnership narrative. Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott wrote of OpenAI at the time: “I’m highly skeptical of an imminent breakthrough in AGI. They’re treating us like a bucket of undifferentiated GPUs.” Separately, Nadella had warned in a 2022 email that he didn’t “want to be IBM” to OpenAI’s Microsoft — referencing the deal that allowed Microsoft to dominate the PC era at IBM's expense. A video deposition from a Microsoft executive revealed the company had recognised approximately $9.5 billion in revenue from the OpenAI partnership as of March 2025. Ilya SutskeverThe OpenAI co-founder and former chief scientist (who voted to fire Altman in 2023, describing it as a “Hail Mary” driven by genuine safety concerns) made one of the sharpest one-liners of the trial. Brass tacks, Musk’s argument was: “It’s not OK to steal a charity.” Sutskever’s counter: “The mission of OpenAI is larger than the structure.” He testified he had turned down a $6 million annual salary at Google to join OpenAI; his current stake is estimated at around $7 billion. The donkey trophyIn one of the most riveting details that seems nothing short of legal drama material, OpenAI brought a golden trophy of a donkey’s rear end into evidence — awarded to an employee Musk once called a “jackass” for pushing back on his plans to accelerate toward AGI. OpenAI presented it as evidence of its commitment to safety over speed. Sam Altman on the stand & 2023 “fog of war” Last Tuesday’s testimony was a huge focus in the defence case. Altman’s position, delivered over roughly four hours, was, “He didn’t steal a charity, but Elon Musk abandoned one.” Altman testified that Musk’s departure from the board in 2018 was, frankly, a morale boost for employees who disliked his “hardcore” approach and that Musk had made clear he would only work on companies he fully controlled. “I was extremely uncomfortable with it,” Altman said of Musk's push for majority control. On Musk’s accusation that he stole the charity, Altman said: “Mr. Musk did try to kill it.” He alleged Musk had launched a competitor, attempted to poach OpenAI talent, and engaged in “business interference.” On his 2023 ouster, he said, “I was in this fog of war. I didn’t know what was going on... everything I had worked so hard to build was going to get destroyed.” He described his decision to return as being “willing to run back into a burning building to try to save it.” Musk’s attorney Steven Molo’s cross-examination zeroed in on Altman’s credibility. Molo asked about concerns raised by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei (who allegedly accused Altman of misrepresenting investment terms), former board members who fired him for being “not consistently candid” and a New Yorker profile titled “Sam Altman May Control Our Future — Can He Be Trusted?” When asked if he always told the truth, Altman replied: “I’m sure there are some times in my life when I did not.” When asked if he’d been called a liar by business associates, he said, “I have heard people say that.” Altman also testified that Amazon, Nvidia and SoftBank have each invested more in OpenAI than Microsoft — a noteworthy point given that Microsoft is named as a defendant but those three companies are not. Closing argumentsIn his closing, Musk’s lead attorney Molo focused on Altman’s credibility, asking jurors to imagine a bridge built on “Altman’s version of the truth” and whether they’d walk across it. Molo reiterated that OpenAI failed to open-source its technology and prioritise safety, and that insiders and investors, including Altman, Brockman and Microsoft, enriched themselves at the expense of the charitable mission. OpenAI’s Sarah Eddy told the jury, “He never cared about the nonprofit structure. What he cared about was winning.” She and co-counsel William Savitt argued Altman and Brockman never made commitments to Musk about corporate structure, that his donations were spent properly and that the lawsuit arrived only after Musk launched his competing AI startup. Altman’s lawyers noted the for-profit arm has generated nearly $200 billion in equity value that supports the nonprofit foundation and that providing ChatGPT for free itself advances the mission of sharing AI’s benefits with the world. One striking sidebar: Musk, who concluded his testimony two weeks ago and has not returned to court since, was spotted in China accompanying President Trump on Wednesday — the morning before closing arguments. He remains technically subject to recall as a witness. OpenAI’s attorney William Savitt expressed surprise, saying it was unexpected to see “the witness, subject to recall, in the case he is plaintiff...decide to get on Air Force One and go to China.” Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff called it a non-issue, noting there was no court order barring travel. What happens now?The nine-person jury — six women and three men — will make a verdict that is advisory, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers will make the final call on liability. If Musk prevails, the judge could order the unwinding of OpenAI’s 2025 for-profit restructuring, the removal of Altman and Brockman from their roles and up to $150 billion redirected to the nonprofit foundation. These could significantly impact OpenAI’s IPO timeline as well as the industry at large. Musk’s own xAI, meanwhile, is expected to go public as part of SpaceX as early as June at a target valuation of $1.75 trillion. On the other hand, if OpenAI wins, it cements the argument that a nonprofit of this kind can evolve into a commercial entity of this scale — and that a co-founder who walked away has limited legal recourse, regardless of the founding language. Arguably, though, neither outcome fully ties up one of the underlying knots the trial surfaced. OpenAI’s origins were far messier than either side’s public narrative: Musk did push for structures that would have given him control, and Altman and Brockman became extraordinarily wealthy from an organization built around the language of altruism. The judge will have the final word on the legal angles, but the trial and discourse exposes something the verdict may not be able to resolve — the most consequential tech of our times was informed, to a large extent, by ego, power and control. OpenAI exists because of a falling-out between two men who each wanted to win the AI race, just on different terms. The public, who will live with whatever AI becomes, had no seat at that table. Editorial StandardsReprints & PermissionsLOADING VIDEO PLAYER...FORBES’ FEATURED Video