During his congressional testimony on AI regulation, Sam Altman faced pointed questions from Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. When Kennedy asked if Altman might qualify to run a hypothetical AI regulatory agency, Altman responded that he loved his current job. Kennedy then pressed him on compensation, asking if he made a lot of money. Altman claimed he was paid just enough for health insurance and held no equity in OpenAI. Kennedy's terse reply: "You need a lawyer."
That legal advice proved prescient when Altman was sworn in to testify in a California federal court on Tuesday, facing questions from Steve Molo, the combative attorney leading Elon Musk's campaign to shut down OpenAI's for-profit transition. Molo zeroed in on what Altman omitted from his Senate testimony: his economic stake in OpenAI through an LP position in a Y Combinator fund. Altman acknowledged he held this interest but defended himself by calling it passive ownership in multiple venture funds. Molo was unsympathetic, pointing out that Altman had told Senator Kennedy he had no equity while apparently neglecting to mention this substantial financial exposure.
Altman's credibility emerged as the central issue in the courtroom. Molo presented a damning list of individuals who accused Altman of dishonesty, including former OpenAI board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, co-founder Ilya Sutskever, and Elon Musk himself. The attorney also referenced a recent New Yorker article documenting concerns about Altman's truthfulness. OpenAI's legal team pushed back, arguing that the examination accomplished little to advance Musk's case and amounted to character assassination. However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and the jury must now weigh Altman's credibility as they evaluate his role in the events under scrutiny.