OpenAI has reversed course on a major restructuring plan, announcing on Monday that its nonprofit parent will retain control over its for-profit arm — a move aimed at easing growing criticism and legal pressure, including a lawsuit from co-founder Elon Musk.
In a blog post, CEO Sam Altman emphasized that OpenAI will remain under nonprofit oversight, countering a December proposal to convert the for-profit unit into a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC). That plan, which would have diluted nonprofit control in favor of capital-raising flexibility, faced strong pushback from civic leaders, regulators, and former OpenAI insiders.
“We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,” said Bret Taylor, chairman of OpenAI’s board.
While the nonprofit will remain the controlling entity and a major shareholder, OpenAI still plans to proceed with uncapping investor profits and revising its for-profit structure to attract future funding. The company is also working with Microsoft, regulators, and other stakeholders to finalize equity distribution under the updated plan.
However, critics say the announcement lacks clarity. Page Hedley, a former OpenAI ethics adviser, said the nonprofit’s reduced ownership stake raises questions about whether OpenAI’s mission — ensuring artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity — will remain legally paramount under the revised structure.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s lawsuit will proceed, with his legal team dismissing the move as a cosmetic change. Attorney Marc Toberoff argued that the new structure hides how much control the nonprofit has ceded to the for-profit business.
Despite the controversy, Altman said investor confidence remains strong, and that the company can still raise up to $40 billion in new funding, including a proposed round led by SoftBank at a $300 billion valuation.
The update comes as the AI arms race intensifies, with OpenAI seeking a delicate balance between mission fidelity and capital flexibility, all while navigating legal scrutiny, ethical concerns, and internal leadership tensions.