OpenAI trial: Zilis says Musk offered Altman a Tesla board seat

Shivon Zilis, testifying in the Musk v. Altman trial, told jurors that there was a moment in late 2017 when Elon Musk weighed offering Sam Altman a seat on Tesla’s board. Zilis said the possibility was discussed as part of broader negotiations about how to organize and fund large‑scale AI efforts.

Under questioning, Zilis described that emails and messages from the 2017 period were entered into evidence and reviewed before the jury. Those communications, according to testimony and exhibits, reflect discussions about recruiting AI talent to Tesla and exploring whether Tesla could host or otherwise absorb a major AI initiative. The witness framed these conversations as intertwined with debates over OpenAI’s governance and financing.

The immediate market impact from the testimony appears limited, but legal observers say the case is amplifying scrutiny of corporate control and governance at leading AI organizations. The trial has highlighted tensions over mission, management and the shifting lines between nonprofit aims and commercial strategy—issues that bear on investor expectations for companies involved in advanced AI research.

Contextually, the testimony underscores Musk’s earlier efforts to position Tesla as a more prominent player in large‑scale AI, including proposals to recruit senior AI figures and to create an internal research capability tied to Tesla’s products and services. Court exhibits and witness statements presented during the week show a pattern of outreach and proposal drafting that the parties dispute in motive and effect.

Market analysts and corporate governance experts say the trial’s outcome could influence future strategic moves by technology firms and investor appetite for AI‑focused governance changes. While a jury verdict is unlikely to alter day‑to‑day operations immediately, it may affect how boards, founders and investors negotiate control, partnerships and potential public offerings in the AI sector. Observers expect additional documents and witness testimony to further clarify the timeline and intent behind the contested 2017 discussions.