Musk firms exit Apple case, retain OpenAI claims

A US federal judge has ordered Elon Musk’s X Corp and SpaceXAI to disclose any agreement behind their resolution of antitrust claims against Apple, even as the companies press ahead with the same lawsuit against OpenAI.

Judge Mark Pittman of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas directed X and SpaceXAI to provide the court with any agreement or combination of agreements with Apple relating to the resolution, after OpenAI sought access to the terms. The order followed the companies’ September 14 motion to dismiss their claims against Apple with prejudice, a step that would prevent those claims from being brought again.

X and SpaceXAI told the court they had “resolved their claims” against Apple and said the iPhone maker did not oppose dismissal. Their filing did not disclose whether money changed hands, whether the parties reached a formal settlement or what commitments, if any, formed part of the resolution.

The motion expressly preserved every claim against OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI LLC and OpenAI OpCo LLC, leaving the artificial intelligence developer as the remaining defendant in the case. OpenAI, which says it was not involved in the Apple resolution, asked the court to compel disclosure on the grounds that the agreement could affect its defence and the damages sought by Musk’s companies.

Pittman also required X and SpaceXAI to respond to OpenAI’s request, keeping the undisclosed Apple arrangement at the centre of the case’s immediate procedural dispute. The court had already granted the request to dismiss Apple, while leaving the litigation against OpenAI intact.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2025, alleges that Apple and OpenAI used their commercial relationship to restrict competition in generative artificial intelligence and smartphone markets. X and the company then known as xAI, now SpaceXAI, argued that Apple’s integration of ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence gave OpenAI a distribution advantage over competing services, including Musk’s Grok chatbot.

The original complaint said Apple’s decision to make ChatGPT available through Siri and system-level writing tools created a privileged route to hundreds of millions of users, while competing chatbots had to rely on ordinary app distribution. Musk’s companies contended that this combination strengthened OpenAI’s position and reduced opportunities for rivals to compete for users, subscriptions and developer attention.

They also alleged that Apple disadvantaged rival AI applications through its control of the App Store and that OpenAI maintained unlawful power in the generative AI chatbot market. Both Apple and OpenAI have denied wrongdoing.

Apple has maintained that its arrangement with OpenAI was not exclusive and that its platform can support other generative AI services. That position was central to its effort to defeat the antitrust allegations before the claims were resolved. The dismissal means the court will no longer decide those Apple-specific accusations in this lawsuit.

OpenAI has separately disputed the plaintiffs’ market definitions and monopoly allegations, and has characterised Musk’s litigation as part of a broader campaign against the company. The Texas action is distinct from other legal disputes between Musk and OpenAI over the organisation’s structure, governance and commercial direction.

For the antitrust case, the practical effect of Apple’s departure is to narrow the litigation while preserving the central allegations directed at OpenAI. Claims concerning the competitive impact of ChatGPT’s integration with Apple products may still arise as evidence or context, but Apple will no longer be defending itself as a party once the dismissal is fully effective.

The “with prejudice” language is significant because it bars X and SpaceXAI from reviving the same claims against Apple in another lawsuit. It also distinguishes the resolution from a temporary withdrawal or procedural pause.

The filing itself was brief and offered no explanation for the change in position. That absence of detail prompted OpenAI to seek the underlying agreement, arguing that its contents could bear on questions of liability, causation or damages still before the court.