This is tied to Musk’s ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, in which he accuses the company of abandoning its founding mission.

Court filings made public on Thursday show that OpenAI subpoenaed Meta in June, demanding records related to discussions of Musk’s unsolicited bid. 

According to OpenAI’s lawyers, evidence reveals Musk and Zuckerberg exchanged messages regarding financing or investment support for the deal through Musk’s AI venture, xAI. OpenAI rejected the offer earlier this year.

Meta resisted the subpoena in July and has now asked the court to block OpenAI’s request, arguing that Musk and xAI themselves should supply any relevant documents. 

A Meta spokesperson pointed to OpenAI’s own filing, which stated that neither Meta nor Zuckerberg signed Musk’s letter of intent to acquire the company. Meta has declined further comment.

The issue traces back to OpenAI’s restructuring into a public benefit corporation, a change Musk insists breaches the company’s original non-profit mission. 

OpenAI, however, says the move is necessary to raise funding and preserve its influence in the industry. The court has already rejected Musk’s call for an injunction against the restructuring, ruling that he had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for success.

Behind the case is an increasingly fierce rivalry in the artificial intelligence sector. Meta, which has been struggling to keep pace with OpenAI and Anthropic, has poured billions into its AI ambitions. 

In 2025 alone, the company invested $14 billion in Scale AI and launched Meta Superintelligence Labs to build systems aimed at surpassing human intelligence.

The company has also aggressively recruited talent from its competitors. In mid-2025, at least eight senior researchers left OpenAI for Meta, including Shengjia Zhao, a co-creator of ChatGPT now heading Meta Superintelligence Labs. 

Others such as Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Xiaohua Zhai joined from OpenAI’s Zurich office, all previously linked with Google DeepMind. Reports show Zuckerberg has offered compensation packages exceeding $100 million to lure top AI scientists.

Meta’s goal, however, has faced setbacks. Its flagship models underperformed earlier this year, forcing Zuckerberg to personally intervene with a new strategy. 

Court documents from a separate case revealed that Meta executives were fixated on building a system stronger than OpenAI’s GPT-4 but fell short of that goal.

The intersection of Musk and Zuckerberg recalls their history of public clashes, including Musk’s challenge to a cage fight that never materialised. The filings suggest the two billionaires may have set differences aside in pursuit of a common aim: challenging OpenAI’s dominance.

OpenAI has accused Musk of mounting “a relentless harassment campaign” designed to disrupt its operations and strengthen xAI’s position. 

At the centre of the talks is how much equity Microsoft will retain after pumping over $13 billion into the company.

According to reports, Microsoft is ready to give up a portion of its stake in exchange for something more valuable, ongoing access to OpenAI’s future AI models beyond the current 2030 agreement. This shows a change in priorities. Microsoft appears to want long-term technological leverage rather than a dominant equity position.

The Financial Times, quoting people familiar with the matter, notes that the original 2019 contract that kicked off Microsoft’s involvement is being reworked entirely. Back then, the software giant had put in $1 billion, laying the foundation for what became a major player in global AI development. 

Now, OpenAI is on the brink of a more aggressive commercial path, but with a twist—it still wants to preserve control under its nonprofit board, even as it converts its business arm into a public benefit corporation (PBC).

That’s a sticking point.

Microsoft reportedly needs to sign off on the restructuring, and sources say it’s not an easy sell. The deal has been made harder by growing friction between the two companies. What began as a strategic alliance is now more of a competitive coexistence.

OpenAI’s enterprise goals are expanding. Its massive Stargate AI infrastructure project, planned in partnership with SoftBank and Oracle and valued at up to $500 billion, is one example that seems to be pushing Microsoft into a more defensive posture.

Some within Microsoft are not hiding their displeasure. “Arrogant” is the word reportedly used to describe OpenAI’s recent conduct. That issue is being aggravated by regulatory oversight. Authorities in California and Delaware are watching the restructuring closely, and investor demands are increasing.

Just last week, The Information revealed that OpenAI told some investors it would be cutting back on how much of its revenue it shares with Microsoft as part of the restructuring. That adjustment appears to favour future returns to new investors over existing ones, putting Microsoft, once its largest backer, in a more uncertain position.

Both firms have refused to comment publicly on the negotiations. Silence, however, isn’t unusual at this stage, especially when valuations are in play and IPO ambitions in the background.

In January, Microsoft had already started changing direction. It revised some of its OpenAI deal terms shortly after entering a separate venture with Oracle and SoftBank to build next-generation AI data centres in the U.S. That was seen by analysts as a sign that Microsoft was preparing for a less central role in OpenAI’s future ecosystem.

Now, OpenAI is pressured on all sides. It raised $40 billion in new capital from backers like SoftBank, is under increased regulatory investigation, and still has to navigate Elon Musk’s objection of its drift towards commercialisation.

OpenAI wants to keep its nonprofit DNA intact. Microsoft wants reliable access to top-tier AI models. 

The decision comes after weeks of pressure from regulators, civic actors, and the legal threat caused by co-founder Elon Musk.

In a sharp reversal, OpenAI confirmed on Monday that its nonprofit parent will remain fully in charge of the for-profit entity responsible for developing and monetising its artificial intelligence products. That’s the same entity behind ChatGPT.

OpenAI had previously planned to become a Public Benefit Corporation—a move that would allow it to raise billions in capital while distancing itself from the nonprofit board.

That idea is now off the table. Instead, OpenAI says the nonprofit remains in charge, though it will take a larger shareholder position within the for-profit operation.

Bret Taylor, OpenAI’s board chair, gave the clearest explanation yet. “We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,” he wrote.

This pivot was inevitable. The December plan to hand more power to the for-profit raised red flags across Silicon Valley. It threatened to weaken the nonprofit’s oversight and led to fears about whether OpenAI still prioritised the public good over commercial gain. The company’s leadership clearly heard those fears—and acted.

Sam Altman tried to frame the change as a reasonable compromise that satisfies all parties. “This works well enough for investors that they’re happy to continue to fund us to a degree we think we will need,” he said. “We believe this is well over the bar of what we need to be able to fundraise.”

OpenAI still intends to change the structure of its for-profit to allow more capital inflow. The nonprofit board will remain in charge of strategic oversight, but the company plans to move ahead with lifting profit caps for investors. The goal? To compete for capital in a global AI arms pursuit.

Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest backer, hasn’t publicly commented on the change. Neither has SoftBank, which was preparing to lead a funding round worth up to $40 billion. That deal is still on the table, according to Altman. But it was initially contingent on OpenAI’s shift to a PBC model. Whether SoftBank proceeds without that restructuring remains to be seen.

In the background, Elon Musk’s lawsuit continues to gather steam. Filed earlier this year, it accuses OpenAI of betraying its founding principles. Musk says the startup was created to develop AI for humanity—not shareholders.

The case, now scheduled for trial in March 2026, is not going away. Musk’s legal team responded to the recent announcement. “The announcement obscures critical details about the supposed ‘non-profit control’ arrangement, and particularly the sharply reduced ownership stake the non-profit will receive in Altman’s for-profit enterprise—where the non-profit currently holds majority equity.”

Musk’s team argues that the nonprofit’s control, while still technically intact, has been diluted behind closed doors. And critics like Page Hedley, a former OpenAI policy adviser, aren’t reassured.

“Will OpenAI’s commercial goals continue to be legally subordinate to its charitable mission? Who will own the technology that OpenAI develops?” Hedley asked, raising alarms over the opaque restructuring.

“The 2019 restructuring announcement made the primacy of the mission very clear, but so far, these statements have not.”