Elon Musk's Lawyers Claim He 'Does Not Use a Computer,' Contradicting Public Evidence

In a development that has raised eyebrows across the tech and legal worlds, lawyers representing Elon Musk have asserted in a recent court filing that their client “does not use a computer.” This claim, made in the context of the ongoing, high-stakes lawsuit filed by Musk and his artificial intelligence startup xAI against Sam Altman and OpenAI, presents a stark contrast to the public image and documented activities of one of the world’s most prominent technologists.

The assertion appeared in a Sunday court document filed in opposition to a motion from OpenAI. OpenAI had accused Musk and xAI of failing to fully comply with the discovery process, a critical phase in litigation where parties exchange relevant information and evidence. OpenAI alleged that Musk’s counsel indicated no plans to collect documents directly from him. In response, Musk’s legal team stated that they had informed OpenAI on June 14 that they were “conducting searches of Mr. Musk’s mobile phone, having searched his emails, and that Mr. Musk does not use a computer.”

The claim is particularly notable given Musk’s deep involvement in numerous technology companies, including Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company, and most recently, xAI and X (formerly Twitter). As the leader of these ventures, one might reasonably assume that interacting with computers would be a fundamental part of his daily work. The legal team’s statement suggests a potential strategy to limit the scope of discovery obligations by arguing that a primary source of digital evidence – a personal computer – does not exist or is not used by the plaintiff.

The Context: Musk's Lawsuit Against OpenAI

To understand the significance of this claim, it is essential to briefly revisit the core of the lawsuit. Filed in February 2024, Musk and xAI’s complaint alleges that OpenAI, which Musk co-founded, committed a breach of contract by abandoning its original mission. According to the lawsuit, OpenAI was founded on an agreement to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) “for the benefit of humanity” as a non-profit entity, but has since pivoted to prioritize “maximizing profits for Microsoft,” its major investor and partner. Musk claims this shift violates the foundational understanding under which he provided significant early funding and support to the organization. The lawsuit seeks to compel OpenAI to return to its open-source, non-profit roots and prevent it from profiting from AGI developed under the alleged original agreement. The case hinges on interpreting the initial agreements and understanding the motivations and actions of OpenAI’s leadership, including Sam Altman, in the years since its founding. The "wild claim" at the heart of the lawsuit, as described by some, centers on whether a legally binding agreement existed regarding OpenAI's non-profit, open-source direction and whether that agreement was violated.

Litigation of this magnitude involves an extensive discovery process. Both parties are required to exchange documents, communications, and other evidence relevant to the claims and defenses. This typically includes emails, internal memos, presentations, and digital files stored on computers and mobile devices. The scope of discovery can be vast, particularly in complex cases involving technology companies and their founders. Disputes over the completeness and adequacy of discovery responses are common, and OpenAI’s recent filing indicates such a dispute has arisen, specifically regarding the collection of documents from Musk himself.

The Claim: "Mr. Musk Does Not Use a Computer"

The specific phrasing used by Musk’s lawyers – “Mr. Musk does not use a computer” – is remarkably absolute. It suggests a complete absence of computer use, which, if taken literally, would significantly limit the potential sources of discoverable electronic information directly from Musk. In the context of discovery, this claim could be intended to argue that there are no relevant documents to collect from personal computers because he simply doesn't use them for activities related to the lawsuit or his businesses. This would shift the focus of document collection to other sources, such as his mobile phone (which his lawyers stated they were searching), emails, or documents held by his various companies.

However, the assertion immediately invites scrutiny when compared with Musk’s highly public online presence and activities. Musk is famously prolific on X, where he frequently shares updates, opinions, and interacts with users. Many of these interactions and updates appear to originate from or relate to activities that would typically involve computer use.

The Contradictory Evidence: A Public Record of Computer Use

The claim that Elon Musk does not use a computer is difficult to reconcile with numerous public statements and actions attributed to him over the past few years. A review of his own posts on X reveals multiple instances where he has referenced or shown what appear to be personal computers.

References to Laptops and PCs on X

Just months before the court filing, in May 2025, Musk responded to a user on X asking about his gaming setup. He stated, “Still using my ancient PC laptop with the @DOGE sticker made long ago by a fan.” This post directly mentions owning and using a “PC laptop.” The context was a discussion following one of his frequent 15-minute streams of the video game Diablo, which he often performs to test the streaming capabilities of Starlink, his satellite internet service. Playing a modern video game like Diablo, and streaming it, inherently requires a computer, typically one with significant processing and graphics power.

Further back, in December 2024, Musk posted a picture on X that he captioned, “This is a pic of my laptop.” The image showed a black laptop with “AERO” branding, a line of computers often favored by gamers and creative professionals due to their performance capabilities. This post was also made in reply to a stream of the Diablo game, where he again claimed he was “testing Starlink streaming while in flight.” The act of testing streaming capacity, especially “while in flight,” strongly suggests the use of a portable computer device like a laptop for professional or business-related purposes, in addition to gaming.

In February 2024, around the time the lawsuit against OpenAI was filed, Musk claimed on X that he had “just bought a new PC laptop.” His complaint at the time was that he was unable to set it up without creating a Microsoft account, which he expressed reluctance to do, implying concerns about Microsoft’s AI potentially accessing his computer. He even directly appealed to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella on X, asking him to allow users to skip the Microsoft account requirement during Windows PC setup. This incident not only confirms recent computer purchases but also highlights his engagement with the technical aspects of operating systems and his concerns about AI and data privacy on personal devices, topics highly relevant to his lawsuit against OpenAI and his work at xAI.

Going back even further, to July 2021, Musk responded to a question about his computer preferences on X by stating he uses a “PC desktop with latest graphics card, although I have a Mac too. Gigabyte laptop.” This single post indicates ownership and use of multiple types of computers: a high-performance PC desktop, a Mac, and a Gigabyte laptop. While this post is older, it establishes a history of using diverse computing devices.

Visual Evidence and Employee Accounts

Beyond his direct statements, there has also been visual evidence suggesting Musk uses computers. In November 2022, during the tumultuous period of his acquisition and restructuring of Twitter, Musk posted a picture that appeared to be a screenshot from a computer screen showing the interface of Mastodon, a rival social network. Although the post was later deleted, it suggested he was actively using a computer to explore other platforms during that time.

More recently, a photo taken in Musk’s office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building reportedly showed what appeared to be a gaming PC. The photo was partially visible in a March video stream of the All-In Podcast, where venture capitalist David Friedberg shared images from a visit to Washington, DC. While the specifics of the PC components were subject to speculation, the presence of a desktop computer setup in his office further contradicts the idea that he does not use computers.

Adding to the public record are accounts from individuals who have worked with him. Multiple employees at X have reportedly told WIRED that while Musk primarily works from his mobile phone, he has occasionally been seen using a laptop. This aligns with the idea that while a mobile device might be his primary interface, he does utilize computers for certain tasks.

Implications of the Claim in Legal Discovery

The discrepancy between the legal claim and the public evidence raises significant questions about the nature of discovery in high-profile litigation. The purpose of discovery is to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information to build their case and prevent surprises at trial. Electronic discovery (e-discovery), which involves collecting and reviewing electronically stored information (ESI), is a crucial part of this process in the digital age. ESI includes emails, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, and data from computers, servers, and mobile devices.

A claim that a key party “does not use a computer” could be interpreted as an attempt to narrow the scope of e-discovery. If Musk genuinely does not use computers, then his legal team would not be obligated to search for and produce documents from such devices. However, if evidence exists – particularly public evidence like his own social media posts – that contradicts this claim, it could lead to several complications:

• Challenges to Discovery Compliance: OpenAI could use the public evidence to challenge Musk’s discovery responses, arguing that his team is withholding relevant information by not searching computers he uses.
• Motions to Compel: OpenAI could file a motion to compel discovery, asking the court to order Musk to search his computers and produce relevant documents.
• Sanctions: If the court finds that Musk or his legal team intentionally misrepresented his computer use to evade discovery obligations, it could impose sanctions, ranging from monetary fines to adverse inferences (where the court or jury is instructed to assume that the withheld evidence would have been unfavorable to the party withholding it).
• Credibility Issues: A claim made in a court filing that is easily disproven by public record could potentially damage the credibility of Musk and his legal team in the eyes of the court.

Legal teams have an ethical duty to be truthful to the court and to conduct reasonable inquiries to ensure the accuracy of their representations, especially regarding discovery obligations. While lawyers can make arguments based on their client’s information, they cannot knowingly make false statements of fact to a tribunal. The definition of “using a computer” could potentially be subject to interpretation (e.g., does occasional use count? Does using a computer solely for non-work purposes count?), but the breadth of the public evidence – including references to work-related activities like testing Starlink or discussing business-related software like Microsoft Windows setup – makes a narrow interpretation seem challenging.

Potential Legal Strategy Behind the Claim

Given the apparent contradiction, why would Musk’s lawyers make such a claim? One possibility is a strategic attempt to simplify or limit the potentially enormous burden of e-discovery. Searching and reviewing documents from multiple computers over a period of several years can be a time-consuming and expensive process. By claiming Musk doesn’t use computers, his team might hope to avoid this aspect of discovery altogether, focusing solely on his mobile phone and emails.

Another possibility, though less likely given the public evidence, is that the claim is based on a very specific, perhaps overly narrow, definition of “using a computer” relevant to the specific allegations in the lawsuit. For example, they might argue he doesn't use a computer *for activities directly related to the founding agreement of OpenAI* or *for storing documents relevant to the specific breach of contract claim*. However, this kind of nuance is not reflected in the absolute phrasing “does not use a computer.”

A third possibility is that the claim is simply inaccurate, perhaps based on incomplete information provided by the client or a misunderstanding. However, given the prominence of the client and the significance of discovery in a major lawsuit, such an error would be highly unusual and potentially damaging.

The most probable explanation remains a strategic move to minimize discovery obligations, betting that the court might accept the claim or that the public evidence might be dismissed as irrelevant or pertaining only to personal, non-discoverable activities. However, the nature of Musk’s public posts often blurs the line between personal and professional, particularly when discussing his companies or testing their services.

Discovery Challenges in Tech Litigation

This situation highlights the inherent challenges of discovery in modern tech litigation, especially when dealing with individuals who operate across multiple platforms and devices. High-profile figures like Musk generate vast amounts of digital data through emails, messages, social media posts, and documents stored on various devices and cloud services. Identifying, preserving, collecting, reviewing, and producing relevant ESI is a complex and costly undertaking. Discovery challenges are common in such cases, often leading to disputes over the scope of requests, the adequacy of searches, and the privilege of certain communications.

The claim about Musk’s computer use adds an unusual layer to these challenges. Instead of disputing the relevance of certain documents or the technical feasibility of collection, the claim directly questions the existence of a primary source of ESI altogether. This forces the opposing party, OpenAI, to use external evidence – much of it publicly available – to demonstrate that the claim is likely false and that relevant documents may indeed reside on computers used by Musk.

Public Persona vs. Legal Representation

Elon Musk cultivates a very public persona, heavily reliant on his direct communication via platforms like X. His posts often provide insights, sometimes unfiltered, into his thoughts, activities, and even the technical tools he uses. This public record, while valuable for followers and journalists, can become a complicating factor in legal proceedings. Statements made publicly can be used as evidence or, in this case, to contradict claims made in court filings. The contrast between the image of a tech leader actively discussing and using computers online and the legal representation that he does not use them is stark and underscores the tension between managing a public brand and navigating the strict requirements of the legal system.

Musk’s history with technology and his public statements about it are extensive. From discussing the engineering challenges at SpaceX and Tesla to debating AI safety and capabilities, his public life is deeply intertwined with computing and digital platforms. His takeover of Twitter, now X, involved hands-on decisions and interactions that would be difficult to imagine without significant computer use. Articles detailing the challenges of the Twitter takeover often describe a period of intense, round-the-clock work that would typically involve extensive use of computing devices.

Furthermore, his ventures into AI with xAI place him at the forefront of a field entirely dependent on massive computing power and sophisticated software. While he may have teams handling the technical implementation, his role as a visionary and leader would necessitate interaction with AI models, data, and development tools, activities that are fundamentally computer-based. The broader AI race involves leaders deeply engaged with the technology itself.

Even his more personal or recreational computer use, such as gaming or testing Starlink, involves devices capable of storing relevant information. Depending on the scope of discovery ordered by the court, even documents related to the setup or use of these devices could potentially become relevant if they touch upon communications or activities related to the lawsuit’s claims.

Conclusion

The claim by Elon Musk’s lawyers that he “does not use a computer” in a court filing related to the OpenAI lawsuit is a remarkable assertion that appears to be directly contradicted by a significant amount of public evidence, much of it originating from Musk himself. His numerous posts on X referencing laptops, desktop PCs, gaming setups, and technical issues with operating systems paint a picture of someone who, while perhaps relying heavily on a mobile phone, certainly interacts with and uses computers.

This discrepancy places the claim under intense scrutiny and is likely to be challenged by OpenAI as the discovery process continues. The outcome of this dispute over document collection could have implications for the lawsuit, potentially affecting the availability of evidence and the credibility of the parties involved. It also serves as a vivid illustration of the complexities and potential pitfalls of e-discovery in the age of ubiquitous computing and highly public digital lives, highlighting the tension between legal strategy and the verifiable public record.