Sam Altman testified that Elon Musk sought 90% equity in OpenAI and was never promised a permanent nonprofit structure, directly countering Musk's fraud claims at trial.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took the stand May 12 in federal court in Oakland, California, and testified that Elon Musk knew from the outset that OpenAI would require a for-profit structure to raise the capital needed to pursue its mission [1]. Altman stated that no promise was ever made to keep OpenAI permanently nonprofit and characterized the original nonprofit entity as having been "left for dead" before the current hybrid structure was adopted [1]. Altman also revealed that Musk initially sought 90% equity in OpenAI before later moderating his demand to majority control [2].
The testimony came during the trial phase of Musk v. Altman, a lawsuit Musk filed alleging that OpenAI and its founders betrayed the charitable mission on which the organization was founded, diverting assets for private gain in what Musk's legal team has framed as a "stolen charity" [2]. The case is before a federal court in the Northern District of California. Musk's lead counsel, Steven Molo, conducted cross-examination aimed at undermining Altman's credibility, deploying criticism from former colleagues and a published article questioning Altman's reliability as a witness [3]. Altman acknowledged under questioning that his view of Musk had changed "significantly" and accused Musk of attempting to destroy OpenAI after departing the board [1].
Altman's testimony is the operational core of OpenAI's defense. If the jury credits his account, the central pillar of Musk's fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty theory collapses: there can be no broken promise if no binding promise was made [3]. The 90% equity demand, if accepted as fact, also cuts against Musk's portrayal of himself as a purely altruistic founder, suggesting instead a commercial appetite for control that contradicts the stated charitable rationale [2]. Microsoft, a named defendant as OpenAI's principal commercial partner, has a direct financial stake in the verdict [3].
Molo's cross-examination is expected to continue, and Musk may take the stand himself, setting up a direct credibility contest between the two principal figures in the dispute [1]. The jury will ultimately decide whether OpenAI's structural evolution from a nonprofit to a capped-profit and now increasingly commercial entity constitutes a breach of the obligations Musk claims were owed to him and to the public charitable mission he says he helped fund [2]. A verdict for Musk could carry significant implications for how courts supervise the conversion of charitable assets by technology organizations operating at the frontier of artificial intelligence development [3].