Musk v. Altman trial could shape OpenAI's future corporate structure

Jury selection began on April 27 in federal court in Oakland in Elon Musk's case against Sam Altman and OpenAI. Formally, the dispute concerns the company's corporate structure. In substance, it is a trial over whether one of the world's key AI companies can finally walk away from its original nonprofit logic. The ruling could affect not only OpenAI's leadership but also its ability to restructure the business without disruption, raise capital and prepare for the next stage of growth.

The conflict dates back to OpenAI's founding in 2015. Musk was one of the project's co-founders and contributed money, connections and help hiring the first key employees. He now says the original agreement was simple: OpenAI was to develop powerful AI for the benefit of society, not as an ordinary commercial company. In a lawsuit filed in August 2024, Musk accuses Altman, OpenAI president Greg Brockman and other defendants tied to the company of departing from the original mission, building a for-profit structure behind his back and turning the organization into a vehicle for extracting profit.

Jury selection began on April 27, and opening statements were expected on April 28.

The central issue is the evolution of OpenAI's structure. The company started as a nonprofit, then in 2019 created a commercial arm to take outside investment and scale its research. In October 2025, OpenAI completed another restructuring: the commercial part became a public benefit corporation, while control, according to the company itself, stayed with the nonprofit entity. For Musk, this path is exactly the proof of a break with the original promises.

OpenAI argues the opposite: Musk himself took part in early discussions about a possible reorganization, pushed for more control, and later began legal and public pressure as the head of competitor xAI. The defense rests on the argument that without a more flexible corporate setup and large outside funding, the company simply could not have paid for the computing power, research and products on the scale of ChatGPT.

The stakes are very high. As of spring 2026, OpenAI is valued at more than $850 billion and remains one of the central players in generative AI. Against that backdrop, any blow to its governance structure could affect investor negotiations, long-term partnerships and plans for further fundraising.

The court has already split the proceedings into two parts: first, the jury considers questions of liability in an advisory capacity, and then the judge separately decides on possible remedies. Under the pretrial order, the remedies phase is due to begin on May 18. That shows the case is not only about loud statements but also about quite concrete consequences for the company's board, management and corporate setup.

For the whole AI industry, it is also a stress test of the idea that a lab with a stated public mission can at the same time remain a magnet for multibillion-dollar capital. OpenAI has long been the most visible example of such a hybrid, so the Musk–Altman dispute will be read as a precedent far beyond one company. If the court finds that the shift to a more commercial model violated the original commitments, it will increase pressure on other AI companies with similar structures.

If OpenAI's position holds, the market will get a strong signal that a hybrid model, with nonprofit control and a commercial operating arm, is legally viable even at a scale comparable to the largest tech corporations.

The main takeaway is simple: the Oakland trial is not just another episode in the public feud between Musk and Altman. It is a legal stress test of the logic on which today's most valuable AI companies are built: whether one can promise benefit to humanity, gather enormous private capital and still not step outside the original mission. For OpenAI, the answer may determine who controls its future, and under what rules.