Week 2 of the Musk v. Altman trial brought testimony from Satya Nadella, Ilya Sutskever, and Shivon Zilis, focusing on OpenAI's nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion.
The second week of the Musk v. Altman trial in Oakland featured testimony from three witnesses at the center of OpenAI's corporate transformation: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, and OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis [1]. Sutskever offered testimony that directly challenged Elon Musk's core narrative, stating that OpenAI's mission is larger than the organization's legal structure, a framing that cuts against Musk's contention that the nonprofit conversion betrayed the company's founding purpose [1]. Zilis, who serves on OpenAI's board and is the mother of four of Musk's children, testified about her role during the critical period when restructuring negotiations were underway [1].
The trial is proceeding before a federal court in Oakland, California, where Musk has sued Sam Altman, OpenAI's leadership, and related parties over OpenAI's conversion from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity [1]. Musk's own testimony spanned three days and dominated the first week of proceedings [2]. The shift to week two brought witnesses with direct knowledge of both the financial relationships underpinning OpenAI's growth and the internal deliberations that preceded the restructuring decision [1]. Nadella's appearance is significant given Microsoft's multi-billion-dollar investment stake in OpenAI, which positions the company as a central commercial beneficiary of the conversion [1].
The substantive core of the case turns on whether OpenAI's leadership breached fiduciary duties owed to the public under California nonprofit law and whether the conversion improperly diverted charitable assets to private benefit. Sutskever's testimony, framing the mission as transcending corporate form, speaks directly to whether directors subjectively believed the restructuring served OpenAI's stated purpose or departed from it. Zilis's testimony addresses her role in negotiations at a moment when she held both a board seat and a personal relationship with the plaintiff, a combination that raises questions about conflicts of interest and the integrity of board deliberations [1].
The case has drawn sustained attention from regulators and legal scholars monitoring how courts apply charitable trust doctrine to organizations that operate at the intersection of nonprofit governance and high-stakes commercial partnerships. A ruling against OpenAI could establish precedent constraining how mission-driven AI organizations structure capital raises and investor relationships going forward.
The trial is ongoing. Additional witnesses are expected as the proceedings move through remaining weeks, with closing arguments not yet scheduled as of the close of week two [1].