Musk Testifies Against OpenAI, Reveals Decade-Old Rift With Google's Page Over AI Safety

Elon Musk took the witness stand in Oakland federal court on April 28, 2026, delivering his first sworn testimony in a lawsuit that accuses OpenAI and its leadership of abandoning the nonprofit's founding mission. The world's richest individual, with an estimated fortune of $778 billion, characterized OpenAI's transformation from nonprofit to for-profit structure as "one of the greatest heists in history" and declared from the witness stand that "this lawsuit is very simple: It is not OK to steal a charity."

The trial, which began with opening statements the same day at the U.S. District Court in Oakland, centers on Musk's 2024 lawsuit against OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and co-founder Greg Brockman. Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015, nine years before filing the suit that now pits him against his former collaborators in a high-stakes legal battle over the company that launched the current AI boom.

The Page-Musk Falling Out

Musk's testimony provided the first under-oath account of his falling-out with Google co-founder Larry Page, a relationship breakdown that Musk claims directly motivated OpenAI's creation. According to Musk's testimony, Page called him a "specieist" for being "pro-human" during discussions about AI safety, and allegedly told Musk it would be "fine" if AI wiped out humanity as long as AI itself survived.

Musk characterized Page's attitude as "insane" during his court testimony. The two technology leaders had once been close friends—Fortune included them on its 2016 list of secretly best-friend business leaders, and Musk regularly stayed at Page's Palo Alto home. Page had even told television host Charlie Rose that he would rather give his money to Musk than to charity.

The friendship deteriorated when Musk recruited Google AI researcher Ilya Sutskever to help launch OpenAI in 2015. Page felt personally betrayed by the talent poaching and cut off contact with Musk. Despite Musk telling podcaster Lex Fridman in 2023 that he wanted to patch things up with Page, saying "we were friends for a very long time," the relationship has remained severed.

This account aligns with the same story Musk previously told author Walter Isaacson for his authorized biography, but the federal courtroom marked the first time these claims were made under oath with legal consequences for perjury.

Corporate Structure Disputes

The core legal dispute centers on OpenAI's evolution from its nonprofit origins to its current for-profit structure, which Musk claims violated the organization's founding principles. Court filings reveal that OpenAI and Musk agreed in 2017 that transitioning to a for-profit structure would be the next phase for the organization. However, negotiations collapsed when OpenAI refused to grant Musk full control.

OpenAI rejected Musk's proposal to merge the AI lab into Tesla, and despite Musk creating an OpenAI public benefit corporation structure in September 2017, he ultimately quit the organization. OpenAI maintains they had been developing a fundraising structure that did not rely on a public offering, but Musk departed after establishing the PBC framework.

During testimony, Musk accused Altman of pulling OpenAI away from its nonprofit roots due to greed. The organization's partnership with Microsoft, which helped fund ChatGPT's late 2022 release, has become central to Musk's allegations that OpenAI abandoned its mission to develop AI for humanity's benefit.

Parallel Legal Battles

The Oakland trial represents just one front in escalating litigation between Musk and OpenAI. Musk's AI company xAI has filed a separate lawsuit alleging trade secret misappropriation against OpenAI. In court filings, OpenAI argues that xAI cannot adequately demonstrate that OpenAI acquired xAI trade secrets or that former xAI employees improperly used confidential information.

Musk dropped fraud claims against OpenAI and Altman ahead of the current trial, streamlining the case around breach of fiduciary duty and the nonprofit's alleged mission abandonment. OpenAI filed a motion to dismiss in October 2025, and separate court filings from February 2026 show disputes over evidence spoliation and sanctions requests.

The legal complexity reflects the broader competitive dynamics in the AI industry, where talent mobility and intellectual property boundaries have become increasingly contentious as companies race to develop advanced AI systems.

Industry Implications

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is expected to testify during the trial, underscoring the case's significance for the AI industry's power structure. Microsoft's funding of ChatGPT catalyzed the AI boom that has propelled stock markets to record heights, making the corporate governance questions at the heart of Musk's lawsuit relevant far beyond the immediate parties.

Looking at the broader pattern, we have seen similar disputes before when transformative technologies create massive value shifts—the internet's commercialization in the 1990s generated comparable tensions between idealistic origins and commercial imperatives. However, the speed and scale of AI development, combined with the existential questions it raises, have compressed these philosophical conflicts into legal battlegrounds with unprecedented financial stakes.

The trial's outcome could establish precedents for how nonprofit AI research organizations can transition to commercial structures, particularly as other labs face similar pressures to scale their operations through private investment. The case also highlights the personal animosities and ideological differences that shape AI development at the highest levels of the technology industry.

As the trial continues with testimony from key industry figures, the Oakland courtroom has become an unexpected venue for relitigating not just corporate governance disputes, but fundamental questions about how advanced AI should be developed and controlled. The resolution may influence how future AI breakthroughs emerge from the intersection of academic research, nonprofit missions, and commercial imperatives.