Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Lead OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took the stand to defend himself against Elon Musk's lawsuit challenging OpenAI's corporate structure. Musk's lawsuit alleges that OpenAI's founders "stole a charity" when they launched a for-profit subsidiary. Musk's Allegations and Altman's Response Altman described Musk's allegations as "difficult to wrap my head around" and emphasized that OpenAI's foundation, with $200 billion in assets, is doing "incredible work." Musk's attorneys pointed out that OpenAI's foundation didn't have full-time employees until earlier this year, but OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor explained that this was due to the challenge of converting equity to cash. The Safety Commitment Debate Musk's lawyers questioned whether OpenAI's commitment to safety had been compromised as its commercial power grew. Altman revealed that in 2017, Musk's "specific plans on safety made me worry." He described a pivotal moment when Musk suggested that OpenAI should pass to his children if he were to die. Altman's Concerns About Musk's Management Altman testified that Musk's management tactics, which might have worked for engineering and manufacturing, didn't suit OpenAI. He claimed that Musk had demotivated key researchers and damaged the organization's culture. Altman defended the "sweat equity" of fellow cofounders Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever. The Aftermath and Current Lawsuit Musk ultimately left OpenAI's board and started competing AI initiatives. OpenAI's lawyers noted that Musk had been kept up to date and asked to participate in investments, which his lawsuits now claim corrupted the non-profit. A 2018 discussion about a Microsoft investment was described as a "good vibes meeting" where Musk shared memes on his phone.

The LeadThe trustees of City & Guilds London Institute have been accused of attempting to dodge accountability for a "catastrophic failure of governance" by stalling on the launch of an independent inquiry into the £166m sale of the vocational charity's training and accreditation business to PeopleCert last October.The Governance CrisisMembers of the 148-year-old body voted overwhelmingly last month for the trustee board to trigger what would be the third investigation into how the foundation sold its operations to the private operator. However, members complained that the process then seemed to have stalled. The poll followed the Charity Commission opening a statutory inquiry in January, which was mirrored a day later by PeopleCert commissioning its own internal investigation into the deal.Financial FalloutThe controversy centers around the £166m sale that created a new private company called City & Guilds Ltd, owned by PeopleCert, as well as a rebranded charity, City & Guilds London Institute (CGLI). The deal has since been followed by revelations that the now-private City & Guilds plans to shrink its UK workforce as part of a £22m cost-cutting drive, with £13m of "personnel cost synergies" largely achieved by replacing departing UK staff with cheaper overseas hires.Executive Compensation ControversyThe sale sparked outrage when it was revealed that former chief executive Kirstie Donnelly and finance director Abid Ismail were awarded massive bonuses after the sale—£1.7m for Donnelly plus £1.2m to Ismail. The rationale for making the payouts has never been convincingly explained and came alongside sizeable salary increases for the pair, with Donnelly granted an extra £100,000 a year, lifting her salary to about £430,000. Ismail's base pay also increased by 30%, rising by about £70,000 to £300,000. In total, the pay of the top six executives more than tripled after the deal.Accountability DemandsNeil Bates, an elected member of the City & Guilds council, which appoints and advises the trustees, criticized the board's lack of transparency: "Why would they not be accountable for decisions made if everything was above board? It is shocking there has been such a catastrophic failure of governance – and subsequently a failure of accountability." Bates added: "There is £166m – that is what is left of the City & Guilds legacy. We want to remove this trustee board from having responsibility for those funds and replace them with people properly equipped to restore good governance to the City & Guilds organisation."Future of the InstitutionWhile the council has the power to appoint City & Guilds trustees, it cannot dismiss them unless misconduct has been shown. A spokesperson for the charity stated: "The trustees remain committed to working constructively with members to find a clear and proportionate way forward in the best interests of the charity. We are reviewing options to shape this approach, ensuring we address members' concerns while avoiding unnecessary duplication with the Charity Commission's investigation. Our priority is to safeguard the integrity and future of the Institute." Donnelly and Ismail have since left City & Guilds without "any financial settlement," with lawyers acting for them indicating they will be commencing litigation against City & Guilds Limited.

The Global Financial Network Behind a Nationalist Party The far-right Reform UK party, led by the firebrand populist Nigel Farage, is on the rise, doubling down on calls for tougher border controls and anti-immigration rhetoric. But a look at its finances tells a different story, with money flowing across borders. While Reform UK says it aims to strengthen the rule of law by prioritising parliamentary sovereignty, cutting immigration, and reducing the influence of international bodies, many of its financial backers, political relationships and ideological allies extend beyond the United Kingdom and into international networks. Within this network is a small number of individual donors, including its largest backer, Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne. Farage himself is a global networker. In December, he flew to Abu Dhabi at the expense of the United Arab Emirates to attend events and meet officials, despite building a political brand centred on opposition to immigration from regions such as the Middle East. The UK political finance system allows unlimited donations on the condition of openness, Sam Power, an expert in political financing, electoral regulation and corruption at the University of Bristol, told Al Jazeera, noting that "anybody can donate as much as they want as long as they're permissible". While transparency was meant to balance this freedom, in practice, with opaque donations, gifts, and weak lobbying rules undermining scrutiny, the system is "no longer fit for purpose in British electoral law", he said. Duncan Hames, director of policy, Transparency International UK, said in a statement that British democracy is becoming "a plaything for the super-rich". "Political parties are growing ever more dependent on a tiny number of mega-donors, and the impact of that money on our politics is clear: it buys privileged access, political influence, and even seats in the House of Lords," he said. Donations have long been a function of the British political system, Power explained, but what Reform UK has done is that it has "supercharged" the scale. "British politics has always had a bit of a representation problem, in the sense that a small number of wealthy people have an outsized influence, but we have never seen the number this small and the money this big," Hames said. International Donors and Financial Flows Reform UK relies heavily on donations, about two-thirds of which come from wealthy individuals. At the heart of this set-up sits Harborne, a British-Thai billionaire businessman who is currently the largest single donor to a UK political party in history, having contributed more than 22 million pounds ($30m) to Reform. In 2025 alone, he donated 12 million pounds ($16.3m). His relationship with Farage has also been shrouded in controversy. The Guardian recently revealed Reform UK's leader had received a 5 million-pound ($6.8m) gift from Harborne that was not initially declared in early 2024, weeks before Farage announced his bid to become an MP and run in Clacton. Under House of Commons rules, new MPs must register all "registrable benefits" received in the 12 months before their election. The Conservative Party referred Farage to the parliamentary standards commissioner for investigation, questioning why such a large sum was hidden from the public. Farage said the money was gifted to him "so that I would be safe and secure for the rest of my life". Harborne has made much of his fortune from his 12 percent stake in Tether, a cryptocurrency that Farage now regularly promotes on media appearances. Global Travel and Speaking Engagements In December, the UAE paid approximately 1,000 pounds ($1,360) for Farage to visit Abu Dhabi and forked out $9,000 for Paddock passes at the 2025 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, as shown in the UK Parliament Register of Members' Financial Interests. The Financial Times, quoting people familiar with the matter, reported Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy had arranged the trip as the UAE's leadership "was keen to speak with Reform owing to a shared opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood". Harborne is also estimated to have spent an estimated 25,000 pounds ($33,900) flying Farage out to the Maldives for a three-day trip that the Reform UK leader listed as a "humanitarian aid mission". Farage is also flown around the world to speak at various events. In November, Bassim Haidar, a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire entrepreneur and prominent donor to Reform UK, spent about 55,000 pounds ($74,528) to fly out Farage and two of his aides to the United States for a "speaking engagement and charity event", according to the register. Haidar uses Dubai as his primary business headquarters, while his main European residential base is in Greece. In February 2025, GB News, a media outlet which has produced biased coverage about Muslims according to a recent study, paid Farage 7,924 pounds ($10,737) to cover the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual gathering of conservatives in the US, organised by the American Conservative Union, at which he also held a speech. CPAC covered the cost of his accommodation. The Future of UK Political Financing Reform UK has committed to doing the "bare minimum to comply with electoral law on transparency", Power said. The party appears "uninterested in giving you information unless they are absolutely forced to", a trend he expects to continue. However, small changes in the law are being applied. After Harborne's gift was revealed, the UK government unveiled a planned 100,000-pound ($135,611) cap on how much British citizens living abroad could donate in a year, as well as a temporary ban on all donations made in cryptocurrencies. Power said ultimately, the system of political donations in the UK will not halt overnight, but some form of compromise needs to be met. He proposed a "democracy backstop" to cap donations at 1 million pounds ($1.35m). "It just moves us towards just taking the poison out a little bit," he said.

Sudden Passing of a Dual‑Sport LegendThe family of Alex Zanardi confirmed that the former Formula One driver and four‑time Paralympic gold‑medalist died "suddenly" on Friday evening, 2 May 2026. The announcement, made through his charity Obiettivo3, emphasized a peaceful death surrounded by loved ones and requested privacy during the mourning period.From F1 Tracks to Paralympic Podiums: Zanardi’s Remarkable JourneyZanardi began his motorsport career in the early 1990s, racing for Jordan, Minardi and Lotus before moving to the U.S. CART series, where he clinched championships in 1997 and 1998. A catastrophic crash at the Lausitzring in 2001 led to the amputation of both legs, yet he reinvented himself as a hand‑bike athlete, winning gold at the 2012 London and 2016 Rio Paralympic Games.Career Milestones and Accolades in NumbersF1 Grand Prix starts: 84 (1991‑1994, 1999)CART championships: 2 (1997, 1998)Paralympic gold medals: 4 (2012 × 2, 2016 × 2)Major accidents: 2001 (Lausitzring, both legs amputated), 2020 (Tuscany hand‑bike crash)Age at death: 59Legacy Impact on Disability Perception and Italian Sport CulturePrime Minister Giorgia Meloni hailed Zanardi as "a great champion and an extraordinary man," while Cordiano Dagnoni, head of the Italian Cycling Federation, noted that Zanardi "transformed the culture of our country, bringing joy and hope to many." His story reshaped public attitudes toward disability, inspiring policy discussions on accessibility in sport and prompting a minute’s silence at upcoming races.Future of Adaptive Sports and Tribute InitiativesIn the wake of his death, organizers plan memorial rides and scholarships through Obiettivo3 to support emerging para‑athletes. Analysts predict heightened media coverage of adaptive racing categories, potentially accelerating investment in hand‑bike technology and inclusive sporting events across Europe.

The Musk-OpenAI Legal Battle Elon Musk spent the better part of three days on the witness stand this week in his lawsuit against OpenAI, and it's already getting messy. Emails, texts, and his own tweets are surfacing in court, and there are plenty more witnesses to come. The Charity Mission Controversy Musk's argument against OpenAI is that by converting the company to a for-profit model, Sam Altman betrayed the "nonprofit for the benefit of humanity" mission Musk signed up to fund. As Musk keeps reminding the courtroom: "You can't steal a charity." What's at Stake in the Courtroom On this episode of TechCrunch's Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec and Sean O'Kane break down what's actually at stake in the courtroom and what to watch for as Altman and others take the stand, plus deals, defense tech, and what Big Tech's earnings week revealed about the limits of the AI spending era. Podcast Coverage and Analysis Listen to the full episode to hear about the ongoing legal battle between Musk and OpenAI, the implications for AI development, and the future direction of the company originally founded with the mission of benefiting humanity. Subscribe to Equity on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the casts. You also can follow Equity on X and Threads, at @EquityPod.

The High-Stakes Confrontation The lawsuit between Elon Musk and OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, has taken a dramatic turn. Musk spent three days on the witness stand, and the case is becoming increasingly complex. Emails, texts, and Musk's own tweets are being used as evidence, with more witnesses, including Altman, set to testify. Musk's Core Argument Musk's primary argument is that Altman and OpenAI betrayed the company's original mission as a nonprofit organization "for the benefit of humanity" by converting it to a for-profit model. Musk emphasized in the courtroom, "You can't steal a charity." The Implications and Future Proceedings The case has significant implications for the future of AI development and the ethics surrounding for-profit models in tech. More witnesses, including Altman, are expected to take the stand. The case may set a precedent for how nonprofit missions are upheld in the tech industry. Related Discussions and Resources Listeners can tune into TechCrunch's Equity podcast for further discussions on the case, including: Analysis of what's at stake in the courtroom. Interviews with experts and witnesses. Coverage of Big Tech's earnings and the AI spending era. The Equity podcast is available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, X, and Threads (@EquityPod).

Elon Musk Takes the Stand in OpenAI Governance DisputeElon Musk appeared before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Wednesday, offering a detailed account of his grievances against Sam Altman and the other OpenAI co‑founders. The core of his argument is that they "stole a charity" by converting the nonprofit into a for‑profit lab that now dominates the organization.Testimony Reveals Musk’s Claims About OpenAI’s Non‑Profit OriginsMusk recounted his early involvement in 2015‑2016, describing how he trusted the founders to build AI for humanity. He said he later grew suspicious, alleging the team "looted the nonprofit" after launching a for‑profit arm. During cross‑examination, OpenAI counsel William Savitt highlighted Musk’s own support for a for‑profit transition as early as 2016, noting Musk even explored a structure where he would hold majority equity.Financial Discrepancies and Funding Figures Unveiled$100 million – Musk’s tweet claiming he invested this amount in OpenAI, contrasted with the $38 million actually transferred.$100 million – Musk’s assertion that his reputation and network compensated for the funding gap.2017 – Musk explored creating a for‑profit arm with majority control, a plan that later collapsed.2020 – Musk stopped regular donations but continued paying for OpenAI’s office space.Implications for AI Safety and Corporate ControlThe lawsuit hinges on the premise that OpenAI’s shift to a traditional corporation threatens societal safety by diluting its nonprofit‑focused safeguards. While the judge halted immediate questioning on the Tumbler Ridge shooting linked to ChatGPT, she signaled that broader safety debates—especially concerning xAI and OpenAI—remain on the docket.What’s Next: Upcoming Testimony and Potential Industry FalloutMusk is scheduled to return Thursday for further adversarial questioning, joined by his family office manager Jared Birchall, AI safety expert Stuart Russell, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. The outcome could reshape investor profit caps, influence future AI governance frameworks, and affect how major players like Microsoft and Tesla navigate profit‑driven AI development.

In a second day of a landmark U.S. trial, billionaire Elon Musk accuses fellow OpenAI co‑founder Sam Altman of abandoning the nonprofit mission pledged in 2015, seeking $150 bn in damages and a court order to revert OpenAI to a charitable structure.Trial Spotlight: Musk’s Allegations Against AltmanThe federal court in California heard Musk’s testimony that he lost confidence in Altman’s commitment to keep OpenAI a nonprofit dedicated to humanity. Musk, who invested roughly $38 m between 2015‑2017 and left the board in 2018, claims Altman tried to “steal the charity” and that the company has been “captured” by profit motives. OpenAI’s lawyers countered that no binding promise existed to remain a nonprofit and that the lawsuit serves Musk’s competitive interests, especially as his own AI venture, xAI, lags behind OpenAI in user adoption.Financial Stakes: $150 bn Claim and $1 trillion IPO ProspectDamages sought: $150 bn from OpenAI and Microsoft, earmarked for OpenAI’s charitable arm.Potential IPO valuation: Analysts estimate a possible $1 trillion market cap if OpenAI proceeds with a public offering.Musk’s historic investment: Approximately $38 m injected during OpenAI’s early nonprofit phase.Strategic Ripple Effects: Nonprofit vs For‑Profit AI ModelsThe case highlights a broader industry tension between mission‑driven AI research and shareholder‑focused profit models.OpenAI’s shift to a public‑benefit corporation was framed as a way to fund compute‑intensive projects while retaining a social mission, a hybrid approach now under legal scrutiny.If Musk’s demands are granted, it could set a precedent forcing other AI startups to reconsider profit‑first structures.Looking Ahead: Potential Outcomes for OpenAI and the AI MarketA court ruling that forces OpenAI back to a pure nonprofit could stall its IPO plans, limit capital for large‑scale model training, and reshape competitive dynamics with rivals like xAI. Conversely, a dismissal would reinforce the legitimacy of for‑profit AI ventures and likely accelerate OpenAI’s market debut, intensifying talent wars and capital flows across the sector.

Lead: Musk’s Self‑Critique Sets the Tone for a High‑Stakes TrialElon Musk opened the second day of his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI by calling himself a “fool” for funding the company, reiterating that the nonprofit was “stolen” and now threatens humanity. The courtroom drama in Oakland, California has drawn intense media attention and could determine the future structure of one of the world’s most valuable AI firms.Musk’s Day‑Two Testimony Reiterates ‘Stole a Charity’ ClaimMusk repeated his accusation that Altman “stole a charity,” arguing that OpenAI’s shift from a nonprofit to a for‑profit entity breached the original founding agreement. He described a 2015 conversation with Google co‑founder Larry Page that spurred his initial investment, and he highlighted email exchanges from 2017 that, in his view, showed Altman reneging on promises.Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers warned spectators against photography, threatening to close an overflow room.Musk’s lawyers presented emails praising his technical expertise and a document where Musk called OpenAI’s safety team “jackasses,” which he later framed as a joke.Financial Stakes: $134 bn Claim and Musk’s $38 m InvestmentThe lawsuit seeks the removal of Altman and co‑founder Greg Brockman, the reversal of OpenAI’s for‑profit structure, and $134 bn in damages to be redirected to the nonprofit arm. Musk’s own financial involvement includes:A reported $38 m contribution that OpenAI describes as a tax‑deductible donation.Quarterly payments of $5 m that continued after the initial funding.Claims that he funded OpenAI’s rent and operations while believing the entity would stay nonprofit.Implications for OpenAI’s IPO and AI GovernanceOpenAI is planning a public listing later this year with a target valuation near $1 tn. A court‑ordered restructuring or leadership change could derail that IPO, affecting investors and the broader AI market. The case also raises questions about:Governance mechanisms for hybrid nonprofit‑for‑profit AI entities.Potential precedent for future disputes over AI safety commitments.Investor confidence in companies that blend charitable missions with commercial ambitions.What the Next Weeks Could Mean for Silicon Valley’s Power BalanceWith a nine‑person jury expected to deliberate over roughly three weeks, the outcome may reshape the power dynamics between visionary founders and corporate governance structures. If the court sides with Musk, we could see:Reinstatement of a stricter nonprofit oversight model for OpenAI.Increased scrutiny of founder‑led AI projects and their funding sources.Potential ripple effects on other AI startups facing similar governance debates.Conversely, a ruling in favor of Altman would reinforce the current for‑profit trajectory, likely accelerating OpenAI’s market debut and solidifying its position as a dominant AI platform.