OpenAI has asked a Texas federal judge to grant OpenAI, Microsoft Face Copyright Challenge | Lawyer Monthly in an antitrust lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s xAI business, arguing that SpaceX securities disclosures contradict claims that Apple’s integration of ChatGPT harmed competition.
The motion was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Mark Pittman, with the case currently scheduled for trial in January.
X Corp and xAI sued Apple and OpenAI in 2025, alleging that Apple’s integration of ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence features on iPhones and other devices unlawfully restricted rival generative-AI services.
Apple Loses to EU Commission on DMA — Lawyer Monthly and OpenAI deny wrongdoing. OpenAI argues that its agreement with Apple is expressly non-exclusive and does not prevent Apple from integrating competing AI chatbots.
Its latest motion seeks to dispose of the claims without a trial.
A central part of OpenAI’s argument concerns disclosures made by SpaceX, which now owns the xAI business. OpenAI says statements in SpaceX’s securities filings are inconsistent with allegations that xAI has been excluded from competing effectively in the generative-AI market.
According to OpenAI’s filing, SpaceX has told investors that xAI has a “formidable competitive advantage” and a leading position in advanced artificial intelligence, while also describing the consumer AI market as rapidly evolving and intensely competitive.
OpenAI argues that those statements conflict with xAI’s litigation position that Apple’s ChatGPT integration substantially foreclosed competition.
The filing also challenges the claimed commercial impact of the Apple partnership.
OpenAI says the ChatGPT integration initially attracted fewer additional users than expected, leading the company to reduce its forecasts for incremental logged-in weekly active users generated by the arrangement. By the time Musk’s companies filed suit, OpenAI argues, the integration was substantially underperforming its earlier expectations.
That evidence matters because xAI’s antitrust theory depends partly on showing that the Apple arrangement gave OpenAI a distribution advantage capable of excluding competitors.
OpenAI also argues that the plaintiffs cannot establish antitrust standing, substantial foreclosure of competition or Google Faces Six-Year Antitrust Monitor | Lawyer Monthly in a properly defined market. Those arguments are now before Pittman and have not yet been accepted by the court.
The case illustrates how corporate disclosures made outside litigation can become important evidence in competition disputes. Statements to investors about market position, growth and competitive strength may be scrutinised when a company later alleges that rival conduct has restricted its ability to compete.
For antitrust lawyers, consistency between public disclosures and litigation positions can therefore become significant when establishing competitive injury.
The dispute also raises the separate question of exclusivity. OpenAI argues that the Apple agreement itself allows other generative-AI services to be integrated into Apple Intelligence and that users remain free to download competing chatbots through the App Store and other channels.
X Corp said last week that it had settled its claims against Apple, although the terms have not been disclosed. OpenAI subsequently failed in an attempt to obtain the confidential settlement agreement.
The remaining dispute now turns on whether xAI can establish the market power, exclusionary conduct and legally recognised competitive injury required for its antitrust claims.
OpenAI is asking the court to conclude that the evidence already developed makes a trial unnecessary. Pittman must now decide whether those arguments warrant summary judgment or whether the disputed competition issues should proceed to a jury.
The case is X Corp. and SpaceXAI LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 4:25-cv-00914-P, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.