Loading article…
Elon Musk’s claim for total control of OpenAI sparks courtroom drama, with up to $134 billion at stake and potential impact on the AI market.
Elon Musk’s bid for “total control” of OpenAI hit a flashpoint on Tuesday when CEO Sam Altman testified that Musk even suggested the company should pass to his children after his death, a claim that underscores the high‑stakes $134 billion lawsuit and could reshape the AI sector’s ownership model【1】.
| At a glance | |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit amount | Up to $134 billion in damages sought by Musk【3】 |
| Control demand | Musk wanted “total control” of OpenAI, even after his death【1】 |
| Trial stage | Third week of a federal trial in Oakland, with nine‑person jury【1】 |
| OpenAI IPO | Planned for near‑future, pending trial outcome【2】 |
Altman recounted a “hair‑raising moment” from 2015‑2018 when Musk, then a co‑founder, demanded absolute authority over OpenAI and asked whether control should transfer to his children if he died【1】. He argued that such concentration contradicts OpenAI’s founding principle that no single person should steer the pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI)【1】. The testimony highlighted Musk’s broader stance that he would only work on companies he could control, citing SpaceX as a model of founder‑run tech firms【1】.
Musk’s lawsuit alleges that Altman and president Greg Brockman misled him into funding OpenAI as a nonprofit, only to later spin off a for‑profit arm that attracted billions from Microsoft【3】. If the jury sides with Musk, the case could force OpenAI back into a nonprofit structure and potentially remove its current leadership, a move that would reverberate across the AI race and affect the timing of OpenAI’s anticipated IPO【3】【2】. Conversely, the lawsuit’s dismissal on procedural grounds—citing a statute‑of‑limitations issue—would leave the for‑profit model intact and preserve the market status quo【2】.
OpenAI’s shift to a for‑profit model has already positioned it alongside tech giants like Google, enabling it to raise capital at scale. Musk’s claim that the partnership with Microsoft, which injected roughly $13 billion into the for‑profit arm, represents a “bait and switch” underscores the tension between nonprofit ideals and the capital demands of cutting‑edge AI development【2】. The outcome could set a precedent for how AI startups balance mission‑driven goals with the need for large‑scale funding.
The trial’s resolution will determine whether a single founder can dictate the future of a leading AI lab, a question that sits at the intersection of technology governance, venture financing, and the broader race to dominate artificial intelligence.
Coverage is mostly measured — 166 of 188 reports stay neutral.
Every Monday — the token unlocks, Fed dates & catalysts set to move crypto and markets this week. So you’re never blindsided.
Free · 3-min read · one-click unsubscribe
AI-assisted synthesis by the TrendWatcher Editorial Desk · sourced from 3 outlets · Jul 12, 2026 · How we report
Apple claims OpenAI hired former Apple employees who kept a company laptop, accessed internal systems, downloaded confidential files, and used a shared supplier to replicate a proprietary metal‑finishing process.
OpenAI issued a brief statement saying it has "no interest" in other companies' trade secrets and is focused on building technology that empowers people.
California courts generally reject the inevitable disclosure doctrine and do not enforce non‑compete agreements, limiting enforcement to conduct such as unauthorized access or misuse of documents.
Musk has used his X platform to publicly criticize Sam Altman and OpenAI, calling the CEO a "scam" in the context of the Apple lawsuit and broader competitive tensions.
Apple alleges OpenAI misled a manufacturing partner into reproducing its proprietary metal‑finishing technique, suggesting trade secrets can be transferred through shared suppliers as easily as through departing staff.