Ray Seilie recently spoke to NBC News about the increasing backlash surrounding OpenAI’s use of subpoenas against at least seven nonprofit organizations that have criticized the company’s restructuring and business practices. This development has raised questions about how powerful tech firms handle opposition.
The article, “OpenAI Accused of Using Legal Tactics to Silence Nonprofits,” details how one of those subpoenas targeted Nathan Calvin, general counsel for Encode, a nonprofit that helped sponsor California’s first comprehensive AI regulation bill, SB 53. Encode has been openly critical of OpenAI’s shift toward a for-profit structure and its influence on AI policy.
The subpoenas, issued as part of OpenAI’s legal dispute with Elon Musk, prompted concerns from advocacy groups that viewed them as overly broad and intended to intimidate critics. However, Ray told NBC News that the legal requests appear more limited than they could have been if the goal were intimidation.
“If OpenAI had wanted to intimidate or harass him, they could have served him with a deposition subpoena, which would have required [Nathan] Calvin to sit down for a full day of questioning under oath by OpenAI’s lawyers in addition to providing documents,” Ray points out. “The fact that OpenAI only asked for documents suggests that they were sincerely looking for connections between Musk and Encode, even if they turned out to be wrong about their suspicion.”
