Musk Demands Billions Over Alleged ‘Wrongful Gains’ * Science and Technology Times

Elon Musk is seeking up to 134 billion dollars from OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming they benefited unfairly from his early involvement in the AI startup.
The lawsuit argues that both companies gained tens of billions in value from contributions Musk made during OpenAI’s founding years.
OpenAI and Microsoft reject the allegations and are preparing to challenge the claims when the case goes before a jury in April.

A High‑Stakes Legal Dispute

Elon Musk is pursuing as much as 134 billion dollars from OpenAI and Microsoft, according to a new federal court filing. He argues that both companies received “wrongful gains” stemming from his early support of OpenAI, which he co‑founded in 2015. The filing claims OpenAI benefited by between 65.5 billion and 109.4 billion dollars from his contributions, while Microsoft gained between 13.3 billion and 25.1 billion dollars. Neither company, nor Musk’s legal team, responded to requests for comment outside regular business hours.

OpenAI has previously dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless” and part of a broader “harassment” effort by Musk. Microsoft has also rejected the accusations, with one of its lawyers stating there is no evidence the company “aided and abetted” OpenAI. Both firms challenged Musk’s damages calculations in a separate filing submitted on the same day. Their response signals that the upcoming trial will likely involve extensive debate over financial modeling and expert testimony.

Claims Rooted in OpenAI’s Early Years

Musk left OpenAI in 2018 and now leads xAI, which develops the competing chatbot Grok. He alleges that OpenAI abandoned its original nonprofit mission when it restructured into a for‑profit entity, a shift he argues contradicts the principles under which he helped establish the organization. His filing states that he contributed roughly 38 million dollars—about 60 percent of OpenAI’s early seed funding. Musk also claims he played a key role in recruiting staff, connecting founders with influential contacts, and lending credibility to the project during its formative period.

The court document argues that early contributors can be entitled to gains far exceeding their initial investment. Musk’s team says the value OpenAI and Microsoft derived from his involvement should therefore be returned to him. These estimates were prepared by financial economist C. Paul Wazzan, who serves as Musk’s expert witness. The companies, however, argue that Wazzan’s analysis is “made up,” “unverifiable,” and “unprecedented.”

Challenges to Expert Testimony

OpenAI and Microsoft have asked the judge to restrict what Musk’s expert may present to the jury. They argue that the methodology used to calculate the alleged gains could mislead jurors and create an unrealistic picture of OpenAI’s financial trajectory. Their filing also claims the analysis seeks an “implausible” transfer of billions from a nonprofit organization to a former donor who now operates a competing AI company. This dispute over expert evidence is expected to become a central issue in the trial.

Musk’s filing notes that he may seek punitive damages and other penalties if the jury finds either company liable. It also mentions the possibility of an injunction, though it does not specify what form such an order might take. The trial is scheduled to begin in April after a judge in Oakland, California, ruled that a jury should hear the case. The decision ensures that the dispute will unfold publicly, with both sides preparing for a lengthy legal battle.

A Case With Broader Implications

A Clash Over AI’s Commercial Evolution

The lawsuit highlights a deeper conflict over how OpenAI has evolved from its nonprofit origins into a major commercial force. Musk argues that the organization’s shift toward profit‑driven development contradicts its founding mission to ensure AI benefits humanity. OpenAI, meanwhile, maintains that its structure allows it to pursue advanced research while securing the resources needed to build large‑scale systems. Microsoft’s multibillion‑dollar partnership with OpenAI has further intensified scrutiny of the company’s governance.

The case also reflects growing tensions between Musk and OpenAI’s leadership. His departure in 2018 followed disagreements over the organization’s direction and resource requirements. Since then, Musk has repeatedly criticized OpenAI’s approach to AI development and commercialization. The launch of xAI and its chatbot Grok has added a competitive dimension to the dispute.

Financial Stakes and Industry Impact

The sums involved in the lawsuit are unusually large, even by technology‑industry standards. If Musk were to succeed, the ruling could set a precedent for how early contributors to nonprofit tech initiatives are compensated when those organizations later commercialize their work. Such an outcome could influence how future AI research groups structure their funding and governance. It may also affect how investors evaluate the long‑term risks of supporting open‑source or nonprofit AI projects.

OpenAI and Microsoft argue that Musk’s claims could distort the purpose of nonprofit contributions. They warn that allowing such damages could discourage philanthropic support for research organizations. Their filings suggest that the case hinges not only on financial calculations but also on broader questions about the role of donors in shaping the future of AI. The trial’s outcome may therefore resonate beyond the immediate dispute.

Preparing for a Public Trial

Both sides are now preparing for a jury trial that is expected to draw significant public attention. The proceedings will likely involve detailed examinations of OpenAI’s early funding, internal decision‑making, and transition to a capped‑profit model. Jurors will also need to assess the credibility of competing financial analyses. The case’s complexity ensures that expert testimony will play a major role in shaping the final verdict.

The trial’s timing coincides with heightened global interest in AI governance and accountability. Governments and regulators are increasingly scrutinizing how AI companies operate and how their partnerships influence market dynamics. Musk’s lawsuit adds another layer to these debates by questioning how early contributions should be valued in a rapidly evolving industry. The outcome could influence future discussions about transparency and responsibility in AI development.