As the trial of Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI approaches, the two sides continue to make moves and the war continues to escalate. On April 6, OpenAI launched a new strategy, formally writing a request to the attorneys general of California and Delaware, urging regulatory authorities to investigate the behavior of Musk and his affiliates, claiming that Musk had engaged in inappropriate and anti-competitive behavior.
The full text of the letter sent by OpenAI Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings has been made public by the media.
In the letter, Jason Quan specifically emphasized the text message records between Musk and Zuckerberg that were exposed by the media more than ten days ago. Exposed text messages show that on the evening of February 3, 2025, Zuckerberg sent a text message to Musk saying that the DOGE office actually led by the latter was making progress and that his team would be ready to delete content that leaks personal information or threatens DOGE collaborators. He also asked if there was anything he needed help with.
Half an hour later, Musk responded to the message with a heart emoji and said: "Would you like to bid for OpenAI's IP with me and a few others?". Zuckerberg immediately replied: "Would you like to chat in person?" Musk liked the message and said: "Let's make a call in the morning."
Although neither Musk nor Zuckerberg commented on this revelation, people do not know whether the phone call between the two has been opened, and what follow-up progress will be made in this intended cooperation. But Jason Quan believes that this shows that Musk does not want OpenAI to remain a non-profit organization as he claims, but just wants to seize control of the company.
Jason Quan wrote in the letter: "Musk has repeatedly attempted and failed to seize control of the nonprofit for personal gain. These actions include seeking to merge the organization with his own company Tesla, launching a tender offer for the organization's assets, and using litigation to try to derail OpenAI's recapitalization."
In addition to emphasizing the "collusion" between Musk and Zuckerberg, Jason Kwon also cited a bombshell report in The New Yorker that Musk hired investigators to collect information on Altman, including tracking his flight itinerary, the parties he attended, interviewing alleged sex workers Altman hired, and pursuing rumors that Altman sexually pursued minors.
The letter also mentions the scandal surrounding the generation of pornographic images by Musk’s AI company Grok and links it to the current lawsuit. Jason Quan said that if Musk's legal action is successful, it will benefit his xAI's Grok artificial intelligence platform; Grok is being investigated globally for generating pornographic deepfakes of women (including children) without consent, and the move is said to be to increase user activity before the upcoming IPO.
As expected, Jason Quan talked about his feelings in the letter. Jason Quan stated in the letter that Musk’s behavior may hinder OpenAI’s efforts to achieve AGI. OpenAI's long-standing vision is to realize AGI and ensure that AGI benefits all mankind.
A spokesman for California Attorney General Bonta said his office was reviewing the letter. A representative for Delaware Attorney General Jennings did not respond to a request for comment. Musk and Jared Birchall, the head of his family office, also did not respond.
Also on April 6, OpenAI Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane was interviewed by CNBC. In the interview, Lehani still emphasized the cooperation between Musk and OpenAI, which Zuckerberg intended to acquire, which was exposed in the previous text messages. He believes that Musk and Zuckerberg "have taken extremely controversial actions and methods that are fully worthy of investigation" and asked why "two of the four richest and most powerful people in the world" would try to prevent a non-profit organization from moving forward.
It is not difficult to see that both the disclosed open letter and the complaint made by OpenAI in an interview on the same day are part of OpenAI's public opinion offensive: by telling the dark history of Musk's companies and Musk's previous intention to acquire OpenAI, Musk's lawsuit is portrayed as an act of seeking personal gain.
On April 8, Musk, who did not respond to the open letter, submitted a new court document that significantly revised the lawsuit. Among the most significant changes is a requirement that any damages he might win be awarded to charities owned by the company rather than to him. This move can be said to be the most timely response to OpenAI’s “ethical offensive.”
In addition, the amendment also requires the removal of OpenAI CEO Altman from the company's non-profit board of directors, and raises the claim against OpenAI and its partner and investor Microsoft to $150 billion from the previous $134 billion.
Musk's attorney, Marc Toberoff, said Musk amended the lawsuit to say he was "not seeking a penny for himself." He also claimed that Musk was only “asking the court to return everything taken from a public charity and to ensure that those responsible never have the opportunity to do so again.” And that “OpneAI’s PR masters” were distorting the facts.
As for the previous letter sent by OpenAI to the attorneys general of the two states, Toberov believed that the letter was a "desperate move aimed at diverting attention" and believed that "the judge and jury will make a fair verdict in this case."
In the current United States, the reputations of the two technology giants Altman and Musk can be said to be about the same. Musk's words and actions after turning to support Trump and his right-wing agenda have been controversial, and the former has been labeled a "liar" by the public.
On April 6, "The New Yorker" published an in-depth report titled "Sam Ultraman may control the future of mankind, but can he be trusted?" This 20,000-word investigative report took 18 months to complete and disclosed for the first time a 70-page memo compiled by OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever during company infighting in 2023, as well as more than 200 pages of private notes kept by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei for many years.
Through interviews with more than 100 insiders and the compilation of the above-mentioned internal materials, "The New Yorker" outlines a "habitual lie", "extremely dishonest" and "manipulative personality" Ultraman, which is very different from the image of the AI savior that OpenAI is trying to create.
Because the investigation of this report is very solid and detailed, netizens generally agree with the conclusion of the article. However, many netizens believe that Ultraman is not the only villain, commenting that "all people working on AI are untrustworthy" and "Musk needs similar reports." It can be said that on the occasion of the "Mortal Kombat" between the two major technology giants, people have believed that one of them is sincerely concerned about how AI can benefit mankind.
This "Silicon Valley lawsuit of the century" will be heard on April 27. The escalation of fighting between the two sides seems to make the possibility of an out-of-court settlement less likely. In January this year, a California court judge rejected OpenAI’s summary judgment motion and determined that Musk, as OpenAI’s major donor, had legal effect on the “remaining non-profit and open source” condition attached to his donation, even if there was no written contract. As a result, it is widely believed that Musk may partially win the lawsuit, but will not be able to obtain the sky-high compensation he proposed.
For OpenAI, which is sprinting for an IPO, the compensation for losing the lawsuit may be affordable. However, if the court orders it to cancel the for-profit restructuring, return to its public welfare position, and deeply bind itself to Microsoft, this may have a huge impact on the IPO process.