Judge Denies Musk’s Request for OpenAI’s Source Code in Apple AI Antitrust Case
In a significant development within the ongoing legal battle involving Elon Musk’s companies, X and xAI, against Apple and OpenAI, U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray Jr. has denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel OpenAI to disclose its proprietary source code. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the antitrust lawsuit initiated by Musk’s entities, which alleges that Apple’s integration of OpenAI’s ChatGPT into iOS unfairly restricts competition from other AI applications in the App Store.
Background of the Lawsuit
The origins of this legal confrontation trace back to August 2025, when Elon Musk publicly accused Apple of engaging in antitrust violations by favoring OpenAI’s ChatGPT over other AI applications. Musk’s assertion was that Apple’s partnership with OpenAI effectively barred competing AI apps from achieving prominence within the App Store ecosystem. This claim was met with skepticism and was promptly challenged by users of X, Musk’s social media platform.
Subsequently, X and xAI filed a lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI, contending that the collaboration between the two tech giants created an unfair competitive landscape that disadvantaged other AI developers. Apple and OpenAI sought to have the lawsuit dismissed; however, their attempts were unsuccessful, leading the case into the discovery phase—a pretrial period dedicated to the exchange of pertinent documents and evidence between the involved parties.
The Discovery Phase and Source Code Request
During the discovery process, X and xAI submitted multiple motions compelling Apple and OpenAI to produce extensive documentation. Their efforts extended beyond these companies, as they also requested documents from at least eight foreign entities responsible for developing super apps. Among these motions was a specific request for OpenAI to provide its source code, which X and xAI believed was crucial to substantiate their claims.
OpenAI countered this request by arguing that certain technical constraints rendered the integration of xAI’s Grok AI into Apple’s iOS platform unfeasible. In response, X and xAI sought access to OpenAI’s source code to challenge and potentially disprove these technical assertions.
Judicial Decision and Rationale
Judge Ray’s ruling to deny the request for OpenAI’s source code was grounded in the determination that such information was neither relevant to the antitrust claims presented nor proportional to the needs of the case. The judge emphasized that while the source code might be of significant interest to the plaintiffs, the rules governing discovery do not mandate its disclosure under these circumstances.
The court’s decision highlighted that before compelling the production of sensitive and confidential information like source code, the requesting party must demonstrate that they have exhausted other avenues to obtain the necessary information to support their claims. In this instance, the judge noted that X and xAI had not sufficiently pursued alternative methods to gather evidence regarding the feasibility of integrating Grok into Apple’s products without accessing OpenAI’s proprietary code.
Court’s Stance on Discovery Tactics
Beyond the specific denial of the source code request, Judge Ray expressed concern over the broader discovery tactics employed by X and xAI. He pointed out that, despite the case being less than five months old, the court docket already contained over 135 entries, many of which pertained to numerous discovery disputes. This observation underscored the court’s growing impatience with what it perceived as the plaintiffs’ aggressive and disproportionate approach to the discovery process.
Furthermore, the judge rejected the implication made by X and xAI that OpenAI’s refusal to produce its source code could be interpreted as an admission that integrating Grok into Apple’s iOS was indeed possible. He clarified that even if the source code were deemed potentially relevant, its production would not be proportional to the needs of the case, reinforcing the decision to deny the motion.
Implications and Broader Context
This ruling represents a setback for X and xAI in their legal pursuit against Apple and OpenAI. It also reflects a broader judicial reluctance to grant access to highly sensitive proprietary information without compelling justification. The decision aligns with a recent trend where courts are scrutinizing the scope and proportionality of discovery requests, especially in complex antitrust cases involving major technology companies.
Notably, this is not the first instance where X and xAI have faced challenges in their discovery efforts. Just a week prior to this ruling, the South Korean government denied the companies’ request for documents from the Kakao super app, citing the disproportionate and overly broad nature of the request. This pattern suggests that X and xAI may need to reassess their legal strategy and discovery tactics to align more closely with judicial expectations and standards.
Conclusion
The denial of the motion to compel OpenAI to disclose its source code is a critical juncture in the antitrust lawsuit filed by X and xAI against Apple and OpenAI. It underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on relevance and proportionality in discovery requests, particularly when dealing with sensitive and proprietary information. As the case progresses, it will be essential for the plaintiffs to navigate the discovery process with a more measured approach to avoid further judicial rebuke and to effectively advance their claims.
