Musk Took the Stand in His OpenAI Trial and It Got Personal Fast

Elon Musk finally got his day in court this week, and if you were hoping for airtight legal arguments about OpenAI abandoning its nonprofit mission, you might have been disappointed. What we got instead was a very familiar story about friendship, betrayal, and a whole lot of money.

Musk took the stand Tuesday in the ongoing trial over his claims that OpenAI breached its founding agreement by becoming a for-profit company. This is the same lawsuit that’s been dragging through courts for a while now, and honestly, the legal merits have always felt secondary to the personal drama.

The core of Musk’s testimony was a story he’s told multiple times before — in interviews, on podcasts, and to Walter Isaacson for that biography. But Tuesday was the first time he said it under oath. That changes the stakes a bit.

He walked the court through the early days of OpenAI, back when he was still on speaking terms with Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. According to Musk, the original agreement was clear: OpenAI would remain a nonprofit, develop AI responsibly, and not let corporate interests steer the ship. He claimed he poured in tens of millions of dollars based on that understanding.

Then came the pivot. OpenAI transitioned to a capped-profit model, then a full for-profit structure. Musk left the board in 2018, and the relationship with Altman soured fast. The lawsuit followed years later, but the bitterness has been obvious for a long time.

What struck me about the testimony is how much of it felt like airing old grievances rather than making a tight legal case. Musk went into detail about specific conversations, promises he says were broken, and his growing frustration as OpenAI courted Microsoft’s investment. He framed it as a breach of trust, not just a breach of contract.

That’s not necessarily a winning legal strategy. The judge seemed more interested in whether there was an actual binding agreement and whether Musk’s departure from the board changed the terms. Emotional arguments about friendship don’t carry much weight in contract law.

Still, I get why Musk is doing this. For someone who built his public persona around being the visionary who takes risks others won’t, watching OpenAI become the dominant force in AI — while he was off chasing Tesla FSD and xAI — has to sting. The lawsuit isn’t really about the money. It’s about narrative control.

OpenAI’s legal team pushed back hard, pointing out that Musk was fully aware of the for-profit plans before he left and even suggested the capped-profit structure himself at one point. They also noted that he tried to merge OpenAI into Tesla, which would have been an even bigger departure from the nonprofit mission.

Neither side looks great here. Musk comes off as a guy who can’t let go of a grudge, and OpenAI looks like an organization that bent its principles to survive. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as it usually is.

The trial is still ongoing, and we might get more substantive arguments as it progresses. But if this week is any indication, the courtroom drama is going to be more about personalities than precedents. I’m not sure that’s what either side wanted, but it’s definitely what we’re getting.