Elon Musk is moving forward with his lawsuit against OpenAI, despite the AI company’s recent changes to its governance plan. His lawyer, Marc Toberoff, confirmed this decision shortly after OpenAI unveiled its new proposal, which leaves the non-profit arm in control while still allowing for-profit operations to continue under its leadership. The changes come after OpenAI had initially planned to shift entirely to a for-profit structure, a move that had sparked controversy.
Musk’s legal battle centers around the shift from non-profit governance, which he argues could hinder the broader mission of OpenAI. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI but now competes with it, has repeatedly criticized the direction the company is taking, accusing it of focusing too much on profits at the expense of its original mission. Musk’s lawyer further emphasized that the recent announcement from OpenAI does little to clarify the ownership stakes or the actual power of the non-profit within the new structure, calling it an attempt to obscure the true nature of the business arrangement.(Source: Reuters)
The lawsuit, which will be settled in a trial scheduled for March 2026, has drawn attention from several big companies and individuals, including Meta and Geoffrey Hinton, often called the godfather of AI. Many critics argue that OpenAI’s transformation into a more profit-driven entity should be scrutinized by regulators, fearing that it might stifle innovation or shift focus away from AI’s broader potential.
OpenAI, however, is standing firm on its decision to proceed with the revised governance model. A spokesperson for the company criticized Musk’s lawsuit, calling it a baseless attempt to slow down progress. They argued that the changes made to OpenAI’s structure would allow the company to continue developing AI while still being rooted in its original non-profit philosophy.
SEE MORE: OpenAI Abandons Plan to Be Governed by For-Profit Board
As Musk continues with his legal fight, the debate over OpenAI’s future remains intense. With powerful critics on both sides, it’s clear that the case could have wide-ranging implications for the AI industry and its regulatory landscape.
