Elon Musk has asked a court to force OpenAI and Microsoft to disgorge as much as $134 billion, an eye‑watering figure that turns a years‑long dispute over governance and purpose into a public, high‑stakes courtroom spectacle.
The filing — which leans heavily on the work of financial economist C. Paul Wazzan — argues that Musk’s roughly $38 million in early contributions, plus the contacts and technical help he offered OpenAI’s first team, entitle him to a multi‑billion share of the company’s current value. Wazzan’s calculations break the claim into roughly $65.5 billion to $109.4 billion against OpenAI and $13.3 billion to $25.06 billion against Microsoft, which today owns roughly a 27% stake in OpenAI.
Why the number matters
A demand measured in tens of billions is symbolic as much as it is monetary. Musk’s attorneys frame the figure as the sort of exponential payoff early investors sometimes reap when a startup explodes in value. OpenAI counters that the suit is a replay of earlier claims and part of a pattern of harassment designed to disrupt the company and benefit Musk’s own AI shop, xAI. OpenAI has told investors to expect “deliberately outlandish, attention‑grabbing claims” as the case heads to trial.
Both sides are gearing up for an April trial in Oakland, California, after U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled the case can proceed.
The math, and the arguments
Wazzan’s report treats Musk like a startup investor whose non‑financial contributions — early funding, introductions and technical input — generated value later captured by OpenAI and its biggest partner, Microsoft. That approach produces the headline numbers.
OpenAI’s response is blunt: the company says Musk donated $38 million and the record does not support claims for vastly larger sums. In a public rebuttal titled "The truth Elon left out," OpenAI accused Musk of misrepresenting documents and contends the case is worth no more than his original gift.
For context, OpenAI’s private valuation has swelled into the hundreds of billions, and Microsoft has rapidly expanded its AI work inside and outside the partnership — a push that includes new in‑house models and products. Microsoft’s broader AI ambitions, and its sizable investment in OpenAI, are part of what makes this dispute consequential beyond the courtroom; the outcome could reshape how contributions and control are understood in big, hybrid nonprofit/for‑profit AI ventures. (Microsoft’s AI product work is one example of that trend: Microsoft Unveils MAI‑Image‑1.)
Stakes beyond the dollar figure
This is not just a money fight. It’s a clash over narratives: whether OpenAI abandoned a nonprofit mission, and whether early backers have enforceable claims to intellectual property or future gains. Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018 and later founded xAI — whose products compete with OpenAI’s, including consumer‑facing models and services. OpenAI, meanwhile, has its own product rollouts and platform efforts such as Sora on Android, points it uses to show the company’s work is advancing for users and partners, not just investors. OpenAI’s Sora Lands on Android
Observers also note optics. Musk is among the world’s richest people; his personal fortune dwarfs the damages he seeks, which has led critics to interpret the suit as an attempt to score strategic leverage or publicity rather than purely recover economic loss.
What to watch in court
Expect the trial to dig into written agreements, board minutes and contemporaneous communications from OpenAI’s early years. Expert testimony about valuation methodology and the measure of ‘‘wrongful gains’’ will be central. Judges and juries are often skeptical of damage estimates that leap from a modest cash infusion to a massive share of a later private valuation — but the legal theories Musk advances and the documents underlying them will determine how persuasive his argument is.
The broader AI community will be watching too. A ruling that gives new weight to the claims of early contributors could affect how founders, donors and corporate partners structure future AI partnerships and governance mechanisms.
For now, both sides are digging in. OpenAI says it has "strong defenses" and is confident it can show the claims lack merit. Musk’s camp says the damages calculation reflects the scale of value generated by the technologies and relationships he helped seed. The courtroom will be where those competing versions of history are tested under oath and subject to cross‑examination — and where the future contours of AI alliances may be subtly redrawn.