Satya Nadella and Ilya Sutskever testified in Musk v. Altman, with Nadella admitting Microsoft invested despite donor-consent doubts, sharpening Microsoft's legal exposure.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever both testified during the second week of trial in Musk v. Altman, offering competing accounts of OpenAI's contested conversion from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity [1]. Nadella told the court that Microsoft moved forward with a major investment in OpenAI's for-profit arm even while acknowledging internal uncertainty about whether the organization's original nonprofit donors had consented to the restructuring, framing the decision as a competitive necessity [1]. Sutskever, testifying separately, offered what amounted to OpenAI's sharpest rebuttal to Musk's core narrative, stating that OpenAI's mission transcends its corporate structure [1].
The testimony unfolded during the week of May 5 through 11, 2026, in federal court in Oakland, California, as the case moved into its second week [1]. Elon Musk sued OpenAI and its leadership, including CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the conversion betrayed the organization's founding charitable mission and harmed Musk as an early donor and co-founder. Among the legal theories at issue are claims that Microsoft aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty owed to the public through OpenAI's nonprofit structure. Bret Taylor, an OpenAI board member, and Shivon Zilis, a Neuralink executive with ties to Musk, were also identified as key figures in the proceedings [1].
Nadella's testimony carries particular weight on the aiding-and-abetting theory. By acknowledging that Microsoft pressed ahead with its investment despite awareness of unresolved donor-consent questions, he placed the company squarely inside the factual record on what sophisticated investors knew, and when they knew it, at a moment central to Musk's claims [1]. That record now gives the fact-finder a direct account from Microsoft's chief executive, rather than inferential documentary evidence, linking the company's commercial calculation to the conversion's legal vulnerabilities.
The Sutskever testimony serves a different strategic function. His framing of mission over structure is designed to undercut Musk's argument that the conversion itself constitutes a betrayal of charitable trust, essentially asking the court to evaluate OpenAI's conduct by purpose rather than form [1].
With the evidentiary record deepening on both sides, the immediate question is how the court will weigh Nadella's candid account of Microsoft's competitive rationale against OpenAI's mission-first defense. Closing arguments and any post-trial briefing schedule had not been publicly announced as of publication.