Greg Brockman, president and co-founder of OpenAI, testified in federal court in Oakland, California, on Tuesday that during a 2017 meeting with Elon Musk over control of the artificial intelligence company, he believed Musk was going to physically strike him. "I actually thought he was going to hit me," Brockman told jurors, describing how Musk's mood changed after Brockman rejected a proposal for Musk to gain more influence over OpenAI.
The testimony came during the second week of a month-long trial between Musk and OpenAI's key founders—chief executive Sam Altman and Brockman. The lawsuit centers on OpenAI's transition from a nonprofit structure to include a for-profit arm, which Musk argues breached agreements made when he was among the company's original co-founders in 2015.
Brockman testified that after he rejected Musk's proposal, Musk announced he would withhold funding from the company. Musk had been one of OpenAI's primary financial backers before his departure, which occurred as the company grew into one of the world's most valuable AI enterprises following its launch of ChatGPT.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups have pointed to the Brockman testimony as evidence of the risks posed by concentrated power in the artificial intelligence industry. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a statement that the proceedings "shine a light on what happens when billionaires set the rules for emerging technologies that will shape American life for generations."
The OpenAI board, which has previously faced criticism over its handling of Altman's brief ouster in 2023, has argued that Musk's lawsuit is an attempt to hamper a competitor. The company maintains it acted within its rights as it restructured to attract billions in investment needed to compete with well-capitalized rivals including Musk's own xAI venture.
Progressive technology policy advocates have noted that the case could set important precedents for how AI companies balance their stated public-interest missions with investor demands for returns. "This trial is really about whether philanthropic-sounding corporate structures can be unwound when they become profitable," said James Forelle, a professor at Cornell Law School who studies nonprofit governance.
What the Right Is Saying
Musk's legal team has argued that OpenAI's founders made explicit commitments to maintain the company's nonprofit mission and open-source approach to AI development. They contend the company breached those agreements when it created a for-profit subsidiary in 2019 and later sought to fully convert to a commercial structure.
Conservatives have framed the case as a matter of contractual integrity. "When investors—whether they are billionaires or pension funds—put money into an enterprise, they deserve enforcement of the terms that were set," said Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has been critical of Big Tech consolidation but supports Musk's position in this dispute.
Musk's representatives have emphasized that he donated tens of millions to OpenAI and walked away without seeking repayment when disagreements arose. Text messages introduced into evidence show Brockman and former board member Ilya Sutskever discussing whether a Tesla Model 3 would induce them to accept unfavorable terms—a detail Musk's lawyers argue demonstrates the founders were aware of their obligations.
What the Numbers Show
OpenAI has raised more than $13 billion from investors including Microsoft, which committed approximately $10 billion in 2023. The company's for-profit subsidiary was valued at $86 billion during a 2023 tender offer. OpenAI reported revenue of approximately $3.4 billion in 2024, according to sources familiar with the company's finances.
Musk founded xAI in July 2023 as a direct competitor to OpenAI's ChatGPT. xAI raised $6 billion in its most recent funding round, valuing the company at $24 billion. The two companies are competing for many of the same enterprise customers and government contracts.
The trial is being heard by Judge Richard Boulware II, an Obama appointee, without a jury. Legal experts estimate that if Musk prevails on his breach of contract claims, remedies could include requiring OpenAI to operate as a nonprofit or pay damages. A ruling in OpenAI's favor would allow the company to complete its planned reorganization.
The Bottom Line
The Oakland trial offers a rare public examination of the internal dynamics at one of the most consequential technology companies of the current era. Brockman's testimony paints a picture of a fractious relationship between co-founders that predates both the company's commercial success and Musk's subsequent launch of xAI, which competes directly with OpenAI.
The case is scheduled to continue for several more weeks, with former OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis—mother of four of Musk's children—expected to testify. Her testimony could provide additional insight into how personal relationships intersected with corporate governance decisions at the company.
For policymakers watching from Washington, the dispute raises questions about oversight mechanisms for AI companies that have grown beyond their original nonprofit structures. The Federal Trade Commission has indicated interest in AI industry competition but has not commented on specifics of this litigation.