OpenAI has escalated its legal fight with Elon Musk by asking the attorneys general of California and Delaware to investigate what it calls improper and anti-competitive behavior by Musk and his associates, weeks before a jury trial over OpenAI’s corporate restructuring is expected to begin in Oakland, California.
The move adds a fresh regulatory layer to a dispute that has become one of the most closely watched clashes in artificial intelligence, pitting OpenAI’s current leadership against one of its original co-founders, who now runs rival AI company xAI.
TL;DR
-
OpenAI asked California and Delaware officials to investigate Elon Musk’s alleged anti-competitive conduct.
-
The company said Musk’s lawsuit could severely damage its nonprofit foundation by seeking more than $100 billion in damages.
-
A separate report from January said Musk sought up to $134 billion from OpenAI and Microsoft.
-
The jury trial is expected to begin in late April in Oakland.
OpenAI sent the letters on April 6 to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings. In the letter, OpenAI Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon argued that Musk’s lawsuit threatens the organization’s mission and could undermine efforts to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits humanity.
OpenAI said Musk’s suit seeks more than $100 billion from its nonprofit foundation, a level of damages the company argues could cripple the organization. That claim sits within a wider legal fight over OpenAI’s shift to a for-profit structure. In a separate January report, Musk’s filing was described as seeking up to $134 billion from OpenAI and Microsoft in alleged wrongful gains.
This matters because OpenAI’s nonprofit remains central to its governance story. OpenAI says its nonprofit, now called the OpenAI Foundation, holds a 26% stake in OpenAI Group worth about $130 billion based on the company’s valuation. The company has used that structure to argue that commercialization and mission alignment can co-exist, even as critics challenge the arrangement.
OpenAI has also pointed to earlier court filings to argue that Musk himself once backed a for-profit path for the company, and that the relationship broke down when he could not secure control. In its January post, OpenAI said Musk agreed in 2017 that a for-profit structure would be the next phase for OpenAI, though that remains OpenAI’s version of events in a fiercely contested case.
Topics for more insights:
One especially sensitive part of the latest flare-up concerns OpenAI’s allegation that Musk tried to enlist Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a bid involving OpenAI. Report has it that OpenAI referenced this in an August court filing, while other recent coverage said newly unsealed documents showed Musk approached Zuckerberg before making an unsolicited bid.
However, there is no public proof from the reporting reviewed that Meta formally joined that effort, so that point remains framed as an allegation and reported contact, not a settled fact.
For now, the biggest confirmed development is straightforward. OpenAI is no longer limiting this battle to the courtroom. It is now urging state regulators to scrutinize Musk’s conduct as the April trial approaches, raising the stakes in a case that could shape how AI companies balance nonprofit roots, investor pressure, and competitive strategy.
Join The Discussion