I was on a call when the letter hit my inbox. It landed like a thrown glove in a courtroom. You could feel a conversation shift in real time.
A letter arrived on two attorneys general’s desks: OpenAI asks Delaware and California to investigate Musk and Meta.
I read the four-page request and kept returning to the same image: teams of rivals trying to bend law, press, and public opinion into a single advantage. OpenAI’s chief of global affairs, Chris Lehane, told CNBC the company wants state probe of “highly questionable” tactics by Elon Musk and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. The letter asks the attorneys general in Delaware and California to look into alleged coordinated attacks and anti-competitive behavior aimed at hobbling OpenAI’s work toward artificial general intelligence (AGI).
A New Yorker investigation surfaced detailed opposition research: here’s what reporters described and why OpenAI flagged it.
The New Yorker reported intermediaries connected to Musk circulated pages of opposition research on Sam Altman — flight tracking, shell companies, contact lists, even interviews about a purported sex worker. If you read that passage, the tactics described are surveillance-grade and meant to unsettle a leader. OpenAI quoted that reporting in its letter and urged state law enforcement to examine whether those actions were part of a coordinated campaign to displace mission-driven governance of AGI.
Did OpenAI ask state attorneys general to investigate Elon Musk?
Yes. OpenAI formally asked the Delaware and California attorneys general to investigate both Musk and Meta for “improper and anti-competitive behavior,” according to CNBC and a Sacramento Bee copy of the letter. The request frames the alleged activity not as ordinary rivalry but as targeted attacks that could shift control of AGI away from entities committed to safety.
A $134 billion suit is already in the mix: Musk’s litigation escalates the stakes.
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI for $134 billion (€123 billion) — a number that reads like a political statement as much as a legal claim. OpenAI has called the suit part of an “ongoing pattern of harassment,” and the matter is headed to a jury in the Northern District of California; CNBC reports jury selection will start on April 27. That looming trial turns any allegation of coordinated tactics into potential courtroom evidence and public theater.
What did The New Yorker report about Musk’s intermediaries?
The New Yorker described intermediaries, some allegedly compensated by Musk, compiling detailed opposition files on Altman: travel, parties, personal networks, and interviews conducted at gay bars. OpenAI’s letter cites that reporting as part of its case that a campaign of intimidation is underway, and it argues those campaigns threaten the company’s mission-oriented governance.
A pattern of private outreach and public moves: how Zuckerberg, Musk, and Meta factor in.
Engadget reported that Mark Zuckerberg texted Musk offering help with DOGE-related federal-budget talk, then floated the idea of bidding on OpenAI IP together. That exchange — and Meta’s role as an AI competitor — complicates the narrative: this is corporate strategy, political pressure, and personal rivalry at once. You’re watching boardroom calculus and public posturing collide.
I called spokespeople at xAI and Meta for comment; Gizmodo reached out as well and will update this story if they respond. In the meantime, the Sacramento Bee and CNBC coverage show OpenAI wants state-level scrutiny of tactics it says could reshape which companies sit in control of AGI’s future.
There are two frames here: a public legal fight that will play out in federal court, and a quieter battle over reputation, intelligence-gathering, and leverage. The contest is a high-stakes auction between billionaires and institutions, and every public filing becomes a strategic salvo.
Who gets to set the rules for powerful AI systems — and what happens if those rules are written by the winners of a publicity war rather than by accountable institutions?