Court Approves Inclusion of Craig Federighi in xAI’s Antitrust Case Against Apple and OpenAI
In a significant development within the ongoing antitrust litigation initiated by Elon Musk’s xAI against Apple and OpenAI, the court has approved the addition of Craig Federighi, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Software Engineering, as a document custodian. This decision mandates Apple to provide relevant documents from Federighi’s records by June 17, 2026. However, the court denied a similar request to include Apple CEO Tim Cook in this capacity.
Background of the Lawsuit
The roots of this legal battle trace back to last year when Elon Musk accused Apple and OpenAI of collaborating to suppress competition from other large language models (LLMs) in the App Store. Musk’s xAI, now integrated into SpaceX, alleges that Apple’s agreement with OpenAI to embed ChatGPT into Siri has unfairly influenced App Store rankings, thereby disadvantaging competing AI applications.
Apple has consistently refuted these allegations, emphasizing that its partnership with OpenAI is non-exclusive and does not impede other AI developers from succeeding on its platform.
Expansion of Discovery Efforts
In its pursuit of evidence, xAI has sought to broaden the scope of discovery, including attempts to obtain documents from international entities under the Hague Convention. While U.S. courts have approved these requests, xAI has faced challenges abroad. Notably, in January, South Korean authorities rejected xAI’s bid to acquire documents from Kakao, a leading super app provider in the country. Similar requests are pending in other jurisdictions.
Court’s Recent Decisions
The recent court ruling marks a pivotal moment in the case. By designating Craig Federighi as a document custodian, the court acknowledges his potential possession of unique and pertinent information regarding Apple’s integration of OpenAI technologies into its software ecosystem. The court’s statement highlighted that Federighi, as a key decision-maker in Apple’s software development, is likely to have relevant evidence not previously produced.
Conversely, the court found insufficient grounds to include Tim Cook as a custodian. The ruling noted that xAI did not demonstrate how Cook would possess unique, relevant evidence beyond what could be obtained from Federighi’s records.
Additionally, the court denied xAI’s request to add another unnamed Apple employee to the case, who would have provided information regarding iPhone sales. U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. stated that documents concerning competition in the broader smartphone industry exceed the scope of the current claims.
Implications for the Case
This decision to include Federighi while excluding Cook suggests a judicial focus on obtaining information from individuals directly involved in the technical and strategic aspects of Apple’s software development, rather than from top executives whose involvement may be more peripheral in this context.
Furthermore, the court granted xAI’s motion to request documents related to Apple’s partnership with Google, albeit with a narrowed scope. The court found that while the original request was overly broad, documents referring to potential exclusivity clauses of AI providers for Apple products are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
Broader Context
This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges faced by Apple concerning its AI initiatives. In September 2025, authors Grady Hendrix and Jennifer Robertson accused Apple of using a pirated dataset, including their works, to train its AI models. The authors alleged that Apple utilized the Books3 dataset, which comprises pirated copyrighted books, to train its OpenELM language models.
In another case, Apple faced a class-action lawsuit over the delayed launch of its more personalized Siri features, announced at WWDC 2024. Consumers alleged false advertising due to the postponement of these Apple Intelligence features. Apple filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the delay was to meet its high-quality standards and that the iPhone models in question were not defective.
Conclusion
The court’s recent decisions in the xAI lawsuit underscore the complexities of antitrust litigation in the rapidly evolving AI industry. By focusing on individuals directly involved in software development and narrowing the scope of document requests, the court aims to balance the need for relevant evidence with the proportionality of discovery efforts. As the case progresses, these rulings will likely influence the strategies of both parties and set precedents for similar disputes in the tech sector.
