OpenAI has escalated its bitter feud with Elon Musk to a new front: state law enforcement. The artificial intelligence company has formally asked multiple state attorneys general to investigate Musk, alleging that his attempts to acquire the company and his broader competitive maneuvers may violate state laws, according to a report by The Information.
The move is extraordinary. Technology companies don’t typically call on state prosecutors to go after rival executives. But the conflict between OpenAI and its co-founder has long since left the territory of ordinary corporate disputes.
OpenAI’s request to attorneys general marks a calculated decision to open a multi-front legal and political offensive against Musk at a moment when the billionaire’s influence in Washington — through his close relationship with President Donald Trump and his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency — has never been greater. The company appears to be betting that state-level officials, many of them Democrats, may be more receptive to scrutinizing Musk than federal regulators operating under an administration where he holds considerable sway.
The specific nature of OpenAI’s allegations in its outreach to attorneys general hasn’t been fully detailed in public reporting. But the context is unmistakable. Musk’s AI venture, xAI, has emerged as a direct competitor to OpenAI, and Musk has waged a relentless campaign — in courtrooms, on his social media platform X, and in political circles — to slow or block OpenAI’s transition from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity. OpenAI, led by CEO Sam Altman, views Musk’s actions not as principled objections but as a competitive strategy designed to hobble a rival.
This is a corporate conflict with no modern precedent in the technology industry. Two of the most powerful figures in Silicon Valley, once allies who co-founded what was supposed to be a research nonprofit dedicated to safe AI development, are now locked in a fight that spans federal courts, state capitols, regulatory agencies, and the court of public opinion. The stakes extend far beyond the two men or their companies. The outcome will shape how AI is developed, governed, and commercialized in the United States for years to come.
The Musk-Altman Rupture and Its Consequences
To understand why OpenAI is now asking prosecutors to investigate its own co-founder, you have to go back to the origins of the company and the spectacular falling-out that followed.
Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015, contributing early funding and lending his name to a mission statement centered on developing artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity. He departed the board in 2018. The reasons for his exit remain disputed — OpenAI has suggested Musk wanted operational control and was rebuffed; Musk has said he grew concerned about the organization’s direction.
What isn’t disputed is what happened next. OpenAI created a “capped profit” subsidiary in 2019, began accepting billions of dollars from Microsoft, and developed ChatGPT into the fastest-growing consumer application in history. Musk watched from the outside as the nonprofit he helped create became arguably the most valuable private technology company in the world, with a valuation reportedly approaching $300 billion.
Musk responded by founding xAI in 2023, launching the Grok chatbot, and filing a lawsuit against OpenAI and Altman in early 2024 alleging they had betrayed the organization’s founding nonprofit mission. He dropped that suit, then refiled it. OpenAI countered with its own legal filings. The litigation has been grinding through courts ever since.
But the legal battles are only one dimension. Musk has used his platform on X to repeatedly attack OpenAI and Altman, questioning the company’s safety practices, its corporate governance, and Altman’s character. He’s lobbied political allies. And earlier this year, Musk made a dramatic bid — reportedly valued at $97.4 billion — to acquire OpenAI’s nonprofit parent and convert the entire organization, a move OpenAI’s board swiftly rejected as not “in the best interest of the mission,” as reported by multiple outlets including Reuters.
OpenAI characterized the bid as a bad-faith attempt to derail its operations. Musk’s camp argued it was a legitimate effort to preserve the nonprofit’s original charter. The rejection didn’t end the matter — it intensified it.
Now OpenAI has taken the fight to state attorneys general. The logic is not hard to follow. State AGs have broad authority to oversee nonprofit organizations and investigate potential violations of consumer protection and corporate law. Several attorneys general, particularly in states like California where OpenAI is headquartered, have already been scrutinizing the company’s planned nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion. OpenAI appears to be attempting to redirect that scrutiny toward Musk, arguing that his conduct — not the conversion itself — is the real threat to the public interest.
It’s a bold gamble. And a risky one.
By inviting attorneys general into the dispute, OpenAI is effectively asking government officials to take sides in a fight between two billionaire-backed AI companies. Some AGs may welcome the invitation; others may see it as an attempt to weaponize their offices for competitive advantage. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has already been actively reviewing OpenAI’s restructuring plans, and any investigation of Musk would inevitably become entangled with that review.
The political dimensions are impossible to ignore. Musk’s role in the Trump administration through DOGE has made him a polarizing figure far beyond the tech industry. Democratic attorneys general may see an investigation of Musk as both legally justified and politically advantageous. Republican AGs are less likely to cooperate. The result could be a patchwork of state-level actions that further politicize AI governance at exactly the moment when coherent national policy is most needed.
Meanwhile, the underlying business competition between OpenAI and xAI continues to accelerate. xAI raised $6 billion in late 2024 and has been aggressively recruiting talent and building computing infrastructure. OpenAI closed a massive funding round of its own, reportedly at a $300 billion valuation, but the round included provisions tied to the successful completion of its for-profit conversion — a conversion that Musk’s legal and political campaigns are explicitly designed to block or delay.
So the financial stakes are real and immediate. If OpenAI’s conversion stalls, its investors could seek revised terms or exit provisions. If Musk’s challenges succeed in court or through regulatory action, OpenAI’s corporate structure could be thrown into limbo at a critical moment in the AI arms race. And if OpenAI’s outreach to attorneys general results in formal investigations of Musk, it could distract xAI and constrain Musk’s ability to operate freely as both a competitor and a political actor.
Neither side shows any sign of backing down. Musk has continued to press his legal claims and public attacks. Altman has grown increasingly aggressive in his responses, moving from diplomatic deflection to direct confrontation. The request to attorneys general is the latest — and perhaps most consequential — escalation in a conflict that has already reshaped the AI industry’s relationship with government, investors, and the public.
What happens next will depend on whether any attorneys general actually open formal investigations, how the federal courts rule on the pending litigation, and whether political dynamics in Washington shift in ways that alter Musk’s influence or OpenAI’s regulatory exposure. None of those questions have easy answers.
One thing is clear. The war between OpenAI and Elon Musk is no longer just a corporate dispute or a philosophical disagreement about AI safety. It’s a sprawling, multi-front conflict that touches antitrust law, nonprofit governance, political power, and the future of the most consequential technology of the 21st century. And it’s escalating fast.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication