nonprofit-to-profit trial – Musk’s third day on the stand turns confrontational as he disputes cross-examination in OpenAI’s nonprofit-to-profit dispute.
A high-stakes courtroom showdown has taken a sharper turn as Elon Musk sparred with an attorney for OpenAI during his third day of testimony, injecting fresh tension into a case that centers on how the company’s structure shifted from nonprofit to for-profit.
The trial. taking place in federal court. focuses on OpenAI’s 2015 founding as a nonprofit initiative backed largely by Musk. and Musk’s claim that promises made around that mission were later broken.. Misryoum reports that Musk’s confrontation with OpenAI’s legal team reflects not just legal disagreements. but a deeper dispute about governance. incentives. and what “public benefit” means when a company scales into a business valued at hundreds of billions of dollars.
In court. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers pushed back on attempts to widen the proceedings into a broader debate about whether AI poses risks to humanity.. She warned the parties not to pivot trial discussions toward AI safety concerns. emphasizing that the case is not meant to become an open-ended reckoning on future technological dangers.
This matters because the way a trial is framed can influence what jurors and the public ultimately focus on: the contract-like question of what was promised versus the wider societal debate about AI’s trajectory.
On the witness stand. Musk challenged the tone and substance of cross-examination. accusing opposing counsel of steering questions in ways he said were misleading.. At one point. the dispute sharpened around Musk’s earlier testimony concerning profit caps. with Musk saying the answer depended on the level of any cap and indicating that an exceptionally high cap would effectively render the arrangement for-profit in practice.
Meanwhile, the back-and-forth also expanded into a broader portrait of Musk’s business interests.. Musk affirmed that his major companies are for-profit, while also saying he believes they are socially beneficial.. He was then questioned about why he himself did not start a nonprofit years earlier. and Musk responded with a claim tied to the lawsuit’s core allegations.
Misryoum notes that OpenAI’s position is that Musk’s allegations do not reflect promises that the company would remain a nonprofit indefinitely. and the company argues the lawsuit is designed to weaken OpenAI’s growth while strengthening Musk’s rival effort.. That context helps explain why the trial. though centered on legal commitments. has become entangled with competitive strategy in the fast-moving AI industry.
The case is scheduled to run through late May, with the judge excusing Musk from the stand on Thursday but leaving open the possibility he could return later—an important detail for a dispute where each day of testimony can shift momentum.
In the end, this is less a debate about whether AI companies should pursue innovation, and more a test of how founders’ original principles hold up under the pressure of scale, capital, and competition—questions that resonate far beyond this single courtroom.