Elon Musk’s Witnesses Challenge Sam Altman’s Leadership in OpenAI Trial

The legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI reached a critical juncture during the second week of trial, as witnesses provided testimony that challenged the leadership, honesty, and safety commitments of CEO Sam Altman. The testimony focused on whether Altman steered the organization away from its original nonprofit mission to prioritize commercial product development.

The lawsuit, brought by Musk, alleges that Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman looted the charity they co-founded in 2015. Musk contends that the creation of a partnership with Microsoft effectively converted the nonprofit into a commercial entity, violating the organization’s founding principles.

During the proceedings leading up to May 7, 2026, Musk’s legal team presented a series of witnesses who described a pattern of behavior by Altman that they claimed was inconsistent with the interests of a nonprofit dedicated to AI safety.

Rosie Campbell, a former artificial intelligence safety researcher who worked at OpenAI from 2021 to 2024, testified that the company abandoned its commitment to safety in favor of product growth. Campbell stated that when she joined the organization, OpenAI maintained two distinct teams focused on long-term AI safety: one dedicated to ensuring AI alignment with human values, and another focused on preparing the world for the emergence of superhuman artificial intelligence.

Campbell testified that both of these long-term safety teams were eventually eliminated as OpenAI shifted its focus toward productization. She noted that approximately half of her team chose to leave the company rather than accept different roles within the organization.

When the OpenAI board previously removed Altman from his position as CEO, Campbell signed a letter requesting his reinstatement. However, she clarified to the jury that her support was based on the belief that without Altman, employees would likely migrate to Microsoft, which she perceived as being even less committed to AI safety than OpenAI.

While critical of Altman’s leadership, Campbell did provide a point of comparison regarding Musk’s own ventures, suggesting that Musk’s AI company, xAI, likely employed an inferior approach to safety compared to the methods used at OpenAI.

Allegations of Deceit and Board Conflict

Further damaging testimony came from Tasha McCauley, a former member of the OpenAI board that had previously ousted Altman. Her deposition echoed earlier testimony from another former board member, Helen Toner, regarding a toxic culture and a lack of trust in Altman’s leadership.

McCauley alleged that Altman fostered a culture of lying and culture of deceit that permeated the leadership ranks of the company. She testified that this environment led to repeated crisis events occurring every few months.

As a specific example, McCauley cited the launch of the GPT-4 Turbo model. She testified that Altman was dishonest about the launch, claiming that the company’s legal department had determined the model did not require a review by the internal safety board before its release in India.

McCauley also referenced an email from former board member Ilya Sutskever, which reportedly contained dozens of pages of examples of chaotic events resulting from Altman’s behavior or falsehoods.

Nonprofit Governance and Legal Standards

To provide a legal framework for these claims, Musk’s legal team called David Schizer, a professor of law and former dean of Columbia Law School, as an expert witness on nonprofit governance.

During questioning by attorney Steven Molo, Schizer evaluated whether the actions attributed to Altman were consistent with the nonprofit custom and practice and OpenAI’s stated safety-first mission. Schizer concluded that the described behaviors were not consistent with those standards.

A primary point of contention involved allegations that OpenAI launched products without the knowledge or approval of its board. This included reports that Microsoft tested a version of GPT-4 without it first undergoing the company’s established safety review process.

The board and CEO need to be partnering, working together, to make sure the mission is being followed. If the CEO is withholding that information, it’s a big problem. David Schizer

The testimony from the second week of the trial has focused on building a narrative of institutional instability and a departure from the original charitable goals of OpenAI. It remains to be determined how the jury will weigh these accounts when deciding if Altman and OpenAI are liable for the claims made by Musk.