Elon Musk Demands $134 Billion from OpenAI Ahead of Trial Over $500B Valuation
Elon Musk is turning up the heat on OpenAI, demanding between $79 billion and $134 billion in damages as his lawsuit against the AI giant and Microsoft heads to trial next month. The case, reported first by Bloomberg, centers on Musk’s claim to a significant share of OpenAI’s $500 billion valuation, based on his early role as a co-founder and investor.
Musk’s legal team has hired financial economist Paul Wazzan, who argues that Musk’s $38 million seed funding, combined with his strategic guidance and technical input during OpenAI’s early years, entitles him to a large portion of the company’s current worth. According to Wazzan’s report, alleged wrongful gains total $65.5 billion to $109.4 billion for OpenAI and $13.3 billion to $25.1 billion for Microsoft, which now owns roughly 27% of the company.
The lawsuit challenges OpenAI’s shift from a nonprofit research lab into a commercial AI powerhouse. Musk alleges the company abandoned its founding mission of open, safety-focused AI in favor of a profit-driven model closely aligned with Microsoft’s interests. What may have begun as a philosophical disagreement has now escalated into a financial showdown, putting the company’s valuation and governance decisions under the spotlight.
OpenAI has pushed back, warning investors that Musk’s claims are “deliberately outlandish” and attention-grabbing. The company previously described the lawsuit as harassment rather than a genuine commercial dispute. With Musk’s personal wealth estimated at $700 billion, even the maximum damages would be a fraction of his fortune, underscoring that the trial is less about money and more about scrutiny of OpenAI’s corporate path.
As the trial approaches in April in Oakland, California, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for the AI industry. Beyond Musk and OpenAI, the case could influence how investor expectations, nonprofit origins, and commercial pivots are judged in the fast-growing AI sector, setting a potential precedent for future disputes in tech and innovation.
source: Business day