Will OpenAI truly go as far as to send law enforcement to a private citizen’s doorstep merely for speaking in favor of stronger regulation of artificial intelligence? That provocative question has gripped the tech and policy world since Nathan Calvin, an attorney specializing in AI policy formation at the firm Encode AI, publicly alleged that the company did precisely that. According to Calvin’s account, the evening was meant to be uneventful—one of those quiet Tuesday nights where he and his wife were just beginning to settle in for dinner—when an unexpected knock interrupted their meal. Standing at the door, he claims, was a sheriff’s deputy holding a subpoena issued at the request of none other than OpenAI.
In his statements shared on the social platform X, Calvin asserted that the subpoena was not limited merely to his organization. In addition to compelling Encode AI’s cooperation, OpenAI’s legal team allegedly sought documentation that personally involved him, requesting private communications he had exchanged with a diverse group of individuals. These included state legislators from California, university students studying technology policy, and several former employees of OpenAI itself. The inclusion of such personal and professional messages, according to Calvin, felt invasive and intimidating, suggesting an attempt to uncover not only professional affiliations but also private correspondence related to debates over AI governance.
Calvin has since interpreted this experience as part of a larger pattern of corporate retaliation, stating that OpenAI was ostensibly using its high-profile legal confrontation with billionaire Elon Musk as justification to pressure critics and independent advocates. He explained his fear that the company intended to hint—either directly or by implication—that Musk and his allies were secretly behind all criticism leveled against OpenAI’s evolving policies. This interpretation gained further attention when, in a recent report, *The San Francisco Standard* disclosed that OpenAI had indeed subpoenaed Encode AI as part of an investigation to determine whether Musk provided financial support to the advocacy group.
This legal measure was tied to OpenAI’s countersuit against Musk, a case in which the company accuses the entrepreneur of deliberately undertaking actions in bad faith to hinder its operations and progress. As part of this broader legal battle, OpenAI also served subpoenas to other major entities, including Meta, seeking information related to Musk’s multibillion-dollar business ventures—specifically, the massive $97.4 billion takeover bid acknowledged in court filings. The chain of legal requests, wide in scope and ambitious in nature, has sparked renewed discourse over the extent to which powerful corporations can or should deploy the legal system as a means of influence or control.
Encode AI, the organization with which Calvin works, identifies itself as an advocate for ensuring the safety, transparency, and responsible deployment of artificial intelligence systems. It recently penned and circulated a public open letter calling on OpenAI to clarify how the company intends to maintain its nonprofit ethos in the midst of significant corporate restructuring. Encode’s recent legislative focus also includes supporting California’s Senate Bill 53—a pioneering AI regulation enacted in September—which obliges large-scale AI developers to publicly disclose detailed information about their safety protocols, data security measures, and risk assessment processes.
Calvin, reflecting on the sequence of events, characterized the situation as deeply troubling, insisting that OpenAI’s actions represented a stark overreach. He argued that the company exploited an unrelated piece of litigation as a pretext to intimidate those promoting reforms intended to bring accountability to AI corporations—all at a time when that very law, SB 53, was still being deliberated in the state legislature. Notably, despite the pressure and the official nature of the subpoena, Calvin stated he chose not to surrender any of the documents OpenAI’s legal team had demanded.
The response from within OpenAI itself has been mixed. Joshua Achiam, the company’s Head of Mission Alignment—a role specifically concerned with ensuring that OpenAI’s goals remain consistent with ethical and humanitarian values—publicly addressed Calvin’s post on X. He acknowledged, with marked candor, that the optics and ethics of the situation appeared deeply concerning. “At what might be a serious risk to my career,” Achiam wrote, “I must admit that this does not seem right. We cannot act in ways that transform us into a source of fear rather than a force for good. Our mission is meant to serve all of humanity, and the ethical threshold for fulfilling that mission is extraordinarily high.” His remarks underscored a growing internal tension between those advocating for transparency and those focused primarily on legal defense and competitive protection.
Adding to the controversy, Tyler Johnston, founder of The Midas Project—a nonprofit watchdog organization dedicated to AI accountability—reported experiences similar to Calvin’s. Johnston revealed that both he and his organization had likewise received subpoenas from OpenAI. According to his account, the company’s legal team requested access to exhaustive lists of every journalist, congressional office, partner organization, former employee, and member of the general public with whom The Midas Project had communicated about OpenAI’s structural changes. Johnston interpreted this sweeping request as an alarming sign of corporate surveillance tendencies within the broader AI industry.
When contacted by *The Verge* for clarification and comment, representatives from OpenAI did not immediately respond, leaving a silence that has only amplified speculation within the policy and technology communities. The unfolding narrative now raises a series of urgent and uncomfortable questions: How far should the influence of powerful technology companies extend into personal and civic spheres? What limits, if any, should restrain their capacity to use legal tools as instruments of control? And, perhaps most importantly, can a company proclaiming a mission “for the benefit of all humanity” reconcile that mission with actions perceived by some as suppression of dissent?
These questions linger heavily over the broader debate about artificial intelligence governance—illustrating the fragile yet essential balance between innovation and democratic accountability that must guide the future of technology.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/798523/openai-ai-regulation-advocates-subpoenas-police
