Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI was already on shaky ground after his testimony stumbled through several key moments. Now, days into the trial, a message he allegedly sent to OpenAI President Greg Brockman could become the smoking gun that ends whatever remaining credibility his case has left.
According to court filings from OpenAI, Musk tried to settle the lawsuit just two days before trial began. Nothing unusual there. What’s unusual is what happened next.
The Settlement That Wasn’t
Brockman responded to Musk’s settlement probe by suggesting both sides drop their claims. Reasonable enough. But Musk refused, and instead of walking away, he allegedly fired off a message with real teeth to it: “By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.”
That’s not a settlement negotiation. That’s a threat. And OpenAI is now fighting hard to get it admitted as evidence during Brockman’s testimony, which was expected to happen this week.
The significance here goes beyond the inflammatory language. If Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers allows the message into the trial record, it paints Musk’s entire lawsuit in a different light. OpenAI argues the threat reveals Musk’s true motivation: not a principled stand about AI ethics and nonprofit missions, but a personal vendetta against Sam Altman and a competitive attack on the company itself.
Musk’s legal team is predictably pushing back, citing the standard rule that settlement communications shouldn’t be admissible in court. Let sincere negotiations happen without fear that every word will become evidence later. Fair point, normally. But this case isn’t normal.
A Familiar Playbook
OpenAI’s lawyers pointed to a precedent Musk probably wishes would disappear: his failed attempt to back out of the Twitter acquisition in 2022. During those settlement discussions, Musk’s legal team also dangled a “renegotiation” while threatening it would be “World War III until the end of time for real” for Twitter leaders and their heirs if forced to complete the deal. Musk also reminded Twitter executives that ownership would give him access to all their emails and personal records.
That threat was admitted as evidence because Musk’s team had disclosed it to opposing counsel, making it not truly privileged settlement communication. It showed motive. It showed bad faith.
The parallel to Brockman’s message is uncomfortable for Musk. And it gets worse. William Savitt, the OpenAI lawyer who cross-examined Musk on the stand, was actually on Musk’s legal team during that Twitter case. His memory of the “World War III” threat was probably sharp when Brockman’s message landed.
Why This Matters for the Trial
Musk’s testimony last week already seemed to weaken his case. He made concessions, got frustrated under questioning, backed off claims about existential AI risks, and admitted ignorance about technology safety practices at his own company, xAI. Adding an admission that he was threatening Brockman and Altman into submission would make it harder for any reasonable observer to see this lawsuit as anything other than what OpenAI claims: a harassment campaign driven by personal grudge rather than principle.
The question now is whether Judge Gonzalez Rogers will allow the precedent to govern here. Musk’s lawyers will argue strenuously that admitting settlement communications sets a dangerous precedent that chills future settlement attempts. They’re right that this matters for business litigation more broadly. Settle negotiations do need some protection, or everyone goes to trial instead.
But courts also have discretion when communications contain threats or evidence of fraudulent intent rather than genuine settlement efforts. OpenAI is arguing this message falls into that category. It’s not a conciliatory offer. It’s coercion.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers will likely need to rule before Brockman takes the stand. Musk’s team is probably hoping she decides to strictly protect settlement communications anyway. But if she allows it, Brockman gets to tell the jury exactly what he was being threatened with and why, right as the trial enters a critical phase.
For Musk, it would be another painful flashback to Twitter, another moment where his own communications become evidence against him, another argument that his litigious instincts serve his interests more than any principle he claims to champion.
