The feud between the co-founders of the AI revolution just hit a twelve-figure price tag.
In a federal court filing ahead of his April trial, Elon Musk is seeking up to $134 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, arguing that their current dominance is built entirely on the “wrongful gains” of his early support.
💰 THE BREAKDOWN: Musk’s legal team, backed by expert analysis, claims he is owed:
- From OpenAI: $65.5 billion – $109.4 billion.
- From Microsoft: $13.3 billion – $25.1 billion.
- The Basis: Musk contributed ~$38 million (60% of early seed funding), but his lawyers argue his non-monetary contributions—lending his reputation, recruiting key talent, and setting the strategic vision—were the true catalyst for the company’s $500B+ valuation.
🗣️ THE ARGUMENTS:
- Musk’s Camp: “Without Elon Musk, there’d be no OpenAI… He provided the bulk of the seed funding, lent his reputation, and taught them all he knows about scaling a business.” — Steven Molo (Musk’s Lead Counsel).
- The Defense: OpenAI dismissed the filing as an “unserious demand” and part of a “harassment campaign” designed to slow down a competitor (xAI). Microsoft and OpenAI lawyers called the calculations “made up” and “unverifiable.”
🏛️ THE CONTEXT: This filing is the prelude to a high-stakes jury trial set for April 2026 in Oakland. The core legal battle revolves around whether OpenAI breached its founding contract by pivoting from a non-profit research lab to a closed, for-profit giant effectively controlled by Microsoft.
💡 ANALYST TAKEAWAY: This is no longer just about “Open Source” principles; it’s a battle over Attribution of Value. Musk is testing a novel legal theory: that an early backer is entitled not just to their equity share, but to the “counterfactual value” of the company if they hadn’t been involved. If a jury accepts even a fraction of this logic, it could rewrite the playbook for how founders and early donors interact in non-profit to for-profit transitions.
👇 VCs & Founders: Can you quantify “Reputational Capital” in a lawsuit, or is this demand purely symbolic?