Musk antitrust case over Apple, OpenAI integration moves forward

A federal judge in Fort Worth on Friday, Nov. 14, 2025, denied Apple and OpenAI’s motions to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s X Corp. and xAI, allowing claims over Apple’s ChatGPT integration on iPhones to move forward in the Northern District of Texas.

U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman issued a brief order rejecting both dismissal bids and said the issues are better tested later in the case. 

The ruling keeps the case – alleging Apple and OpenAI illegally restrained competition in the smartphone and generative-AI chatbot markets—on track toward discovery. Judge Pittman’s one-page order denies Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and OpenAI’s separate dismissal motion “after a thorough review of the relevant docket entries and applicable law,” noting the questions are more suited for summary judgment than a pleading-stage exit.

Filed on Aug. 25, 2025, the complaint by X Corp. and xAI claims Apple’s “Apple Intelligence” program elevates OpenAI’s ChatGPT as a default assistant inside iOS, foreclosing distribution and data access to rival conversational systems like xAI’s Grok. The suit pleads federal and Texas claims – including Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 and the Texas Free Enterprise & Antitrust Act – on theories that an Apple–OpenAI arrangement ties smartphone dominance to chatbot dominance and steers App Store promotion toward OpenAI. Defendants dispute that characterization and contend there is no unlawful exclusivity.

Friday’s order follows an earlier venue fight that kept the case in Fort Worth. In October, the court declined to ship the dispute elsewhere, a step that set up the parties’ now-denied dismissal motions and positions the matter for fact discovery in Texas.

What survives now are the core competition claims tied to iOS integration and App Store treatment. Apple’s motion argued the complaint failed to plausibly allege an agreement that restrains trade or any market power abuse; OpenAI similarly argued legal insufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6). Judge Pittman declined to resolve those questions at the pleading stage, a common outcome when alleged market effects and technical integration details require a factual record. As the docket shows, plaintiffs seek a jury trial, treble damages, and injunctive relief that could restrict or redesign how ChatGPT is presented inside Apple’s software.

The material on GNcrypto is intended solely for informational use and must not be regarded as financial advice. We make every effort to keep the content accurate and current, but we cannot warrant its precision, completeness, or reliability. GNcrypto does not take responsibility for any mistakes, omissions, or financial losses resulting from reliance on this information. Any actions you take based on this content are done at your own risk. Always conduct independent research and seek guidance from a qualified specialist. For further details, please review our Terms, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers.

Articles by this author