Apple has requested that a court dismiss xAI’s antitrust suit, arguing that its work with OpenAI does not stack the App Store rankings or “freeze out” rivals from the attention of iPhone users. In a motion to dismiss reported by Bloomberg, Apple argued that the case was based on speculation, not fact, and that its AI strategy is intended to be multi-partner and privacy-led rather than exclusionary.
What xAI Alleges About Apple’s OpenAI Partnership Bias
xAI, the venture backed by Elon Musk, says Apple’s support of OpenAI has boosted ChatGPT in an unfair manner on its platform, making it impossible for competitive chatbots like xAI’s own Grok to ever take the top spot.
The complaint casts Apple’s rankings as a vital gateway for distribution and contends preferential placement and integration smother alternatives.
The narrative is messy. Contrary to xAI’s assertions, an entrant with deep marketing pockets can, it turns out, knock off an incumbent on the iOS charts for a brief period — so long as there are updates to drive v1-tired users to update. App analytics companies like Sensor Tower and Appfigures have long observed that editorial featuring and algorithmic prominence can hugely sway downloads — but that heightened exposure is not forever, nor does it tend to rest entirely on one partnership.
Inside Apple’s Motion to Dismiss xAI’s Antitrust Lawsuit
Apple’s filing opens with the claim that the lawsuit cannot succeed at the starting line: there are no relevant market barriers and no tangible harm to competition (not Grok), and there is no exclusionary behavior. The company’s claim regarding xAI’s theory is that it constitutes “mere speculation” because popularity ratings are fundamentally volatile and do not guarantee or issue exclusive rights.
For Apple, its approach cannot be exclusionary since, as its lawyers argue in the motion, Apple’s intent to onboard multiple generative AI providers is generally acknowledged, although such a choice depends on privacy concerns, safety, technical ability, and business terms. It is worth noting that Apple has showcased a hands-off approach to AI provider distribution since the introduction of Apple Intelligence, which culminates in the Apple Intelligence platform, an on-device processing option possessing reduced data and a connectivity gateway to various third-party models for complex queries.
Apple also argues that the app rankings and the app screening are certified product designs and are part of the innovation process as a constructive legal argument. To remain viable, xAI must prove customer harm within a relevant market — and it would seem that the market is Apple’s iPhone app — not just commercial harm to Grok. They should also show that the company’s activities amount to what antitrust law regards as a net loss of manufacturing, competition, or alternatives — in the absence of proof of coercion, modern or determined exclusion, or conduct associated with illegitimate tying liability, U.S. antitrust rule is careful to target item format statements.
Context matters. The U.S. Department of Justice has an ongoing case alleging that Apple uses maneuvers to further lock people into its system, and the Epic Games litigation left most of Apple’s App Store model standing at a federal level, apart from anti-steering rules. The Digital Markets Act in Europe has already mandated that Apple allow new distribution options, undermining any contention that global competition in AI apps rests simply on App Store rankings.
Why App Store Charts Matter for AI App Discovery
Discovery is oxygen for consumer apps, and Apple’s charts can turbo-charge installs. Mobile intelligence companies have teased that featured placement and top rankings result in download spikes, more conversions, and lower user acquisition costs. For revenue-earning AI apps using subscriptions or tokens, a few days on top can alter the course of revenue trajectories.
But correlation is not causation. Ranking signals consist of velocity of installs, retention, ratings, and regional interest — all factors a platform partnership alone can’t ensure. It will be Apple’s position that ChatGPT’s popularity is a manifestation of user demand and brand recognition, not unfair acts. xAI will seek to examine whether unseen integrations or deals had affected visibility in ways that disadvantaged competitors.
OpenAI and the Competitive Landscape of Mobile AI Apps
OpenAI, whose mobile app has been something of a chart fixture, has benefited from name recognition and regular model upgrades. Google’s Gemini, Anthropic’s Claude, and any number of startups that are optimized for agentic workflows or specific use cases are competing for share. Analysts add that cross-platform brand presence, trust signals, and unique capabilities (coding, multimodal reasoning) lead to adoption more than a single storefront touchpoint.
The dispute has also played out in public. Leaders at OpenAI have denied manipulating the system, as Musk has claimed structural bias. That push-and-pull could shade the story, but it will be far less important than what discovery reveals about Apple’s ranking systems and integration demands, along with any exclusivity clauses in its AI deals.
What to Watch Next in the Apple-xAI Antitrust Case
Freedom of Information Case Lands at High Court in London.
The court will determine whether xAI’s complaint passes over the plausibility threshold. It may be dismissed with leave to amend, or the case could proceed to discovery, where ranking logic, partnership terms, and internal communications rule. In any event, the result will be a sign of how judges understand platform curation in the era of generative AI.
For Apple, the bigger picture is likely to stay the same: device-based AI whenever and wherever possible; controlled flows of data; selective offloading of workloads onto cloud models (perhaps more than a single partner)? For xAI and its counterparts, the winning road forward is no different than it ever was in iOS world — ship quickly, differentiate, expand, win metrics that the algorithm, not a courtroom, thrives on.
