Regulatory capture doesn't necessarily mean the regulated get to decide what the regulators do in precise steps. It can simply mean they support and exist within a regulatory regime that greatly benefits the regulated.

In fact, you generally don't want them directly telling the regulators what to do. Instead, the regulators make complex, costly rules that only large establishment players can follow. The regulators look like they're doing their job; the regulated enjoy higher margins and protection from disruption.

The other answers are also valid, but lest we not forget, Sam is openly a fascist supporter and is clearly in bed with the regime in that he funded 47's campaign and jumped in to rescue Hegseth's automated kill list with OpenAI's GPT when Anthropic refused. Furthermore they are likely operating on some kind of quid pro quo agreement even if it's not public knowledge, because that's how all this bribery stuff works. Bezos agreed to use his media empire including WaPo to spout MAGA propaganda, for example. It's trump's one and only MO so to assume it doesn't apply here would be insane.

So, while OpenAI may not in a legal/technical sense, be the benefactory, that is not required for the term to apply, AND they may as well be considered party to the creation of the regulation since they have openly lobbied for it, openly inserted themselves into the government apparatus both formally and informally, and likely are co-conspirators to whatever Trump's autocratic self-enrichment scheme is.