OpenAI Subpoenas Meta Over Musk's $97B Takeover Bid

OpenAI has asked a court to compel Meta to produce evidence about any coordinated plans with Elon Musk and his AI company xAI to acquire or invest in the ChatGPT-maker, according to a brief filed Thursday in Musk’s ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI.

What OpenAI is seeking

OpenAI says it subpoenaed Meta in June for documents related to Meta’s potential involvement in Elon Musk’s unsolicited $97 billion February bid to buy the startup. The filing claims discovery showed Musk communicated with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about xAI’s plan, including possible financing or investment arrangements.

• Communications between Musk, xAI, and Meta leadership related to the bid
• Documents about possible financing arrangements or investments tied to the offer
• Internal Meta discussions about any restructuring or recapitalization of OpenAI

OpenAI ultimately rejected Musk’s bid. The company is also pressing the court for documents tied to any potential restructuring or recapitalization of OpenAI — the central dispute in Musk’s lawsuit challenging OpenAI’s conversion to a public benefit corporation.

Meta objected to the initial subpoena in July and urged the court to reject OpenAI’s request, saying Musk and xAI are the primary sources for relevant information and that Meta’s internal deliberations aren’t central to the case. A Meta spokesperson pointed reporters to OpenAI’s own filing, which notes that neither Meta nor Zuckerberg signed Musk’s letter of intent.

Why this matters for the AI industry

Beyond the legal wrangling, this chapter underscores how high-stakes and high-profile AI competition has become. Meta has been aggressively funding and hiring for frontier AI, including poaching top researchers and investing in partners, yet filings show its models lagged the industry at times. The idea that Musk and Zuckerberg might coordinate — however loose — highlights the strategic pressure OpenAI represents.

Legal questions in the suit center on governance and mission: Musk, an early cofounder and investor, argues OpenAI’s shift to a public benefit corporation and new recapitalization plans depart from its founding intent. Evidence from third parties like Meta could clarify whether financiers or partners were discussing alternative ownership or capital structures — and whether those conversations affected OpenAI’s choices.

For stakeholders — boards, investors, regulators, and AI labs — the case is a reminder that corporate restructurings in fast-moving technology sectors invite scrutiny into who was talking to whom and why. Discovery battles like this also set precedents on how far third parties can be pulled into litigation over strategic industry moves.

How organizations should respond

In a landscape where messages and informal talks can become evidence, organizations need rigorous record-keeping, clear escalation paths for strategic proposals, and scenario-based assessments for M&A or recapitalization moves. When public attention and litigation risk spike, translating legal discovery into business impact becomes essential.

QuarkyByte’s approach is to synthesize communications timelines, map decision flows, and quantify how potential transactions or governance changes would alter technology roadmaps and competitive positioning. That kind of clarity helps boards and regulators make measured choices rather than reactive ones.

As this subpoena fight unfolds, expect more documents to surface that could illuminate how top AI players negotiate leverage, funding, and governance when the stakes are company control and the future of critical AI systems.