Musk’s legal battle with Apple and OpenAI has escalated this week, with a new lawsuit alleging the two tech giants are colluding to entrench their monopolies in the fast-growing field of artificial intelligence chatbots. Filed on Monday, Musk’s lawsuit contends that Apple and OpenAI are engaging in illegal anticompetitive conduct by entering into an exclusive deal for ChatGPT that gives OpenAI a host of features on iPhone, while blocking and undermining competitors from using its platform.

The suit from X and xAI, Musk’s companies behind Twitter/X and the Grok chatbot, comes just weeks after the billionaire went public with a feud against Apple for constantly featuring OpenAI’s ChatGPT in App Store rankings and product features, while his own Grok chatbot remains conspicuously absent. But the new filing goes much further, contending that the two firms have agreed to a deal that gives ChatGPT preferential and exclusive access to Apple’s platform, while punishing and excluding others.

The complaint, which seeks billions in damages and an injunction against Apple, alleges the arrangement threatens Musk’s broader ambitions to use the Twitter successor X as the foundation for a “digital everything” platform with generative AI as its core feature. Musk spent 2022 and 2023 repeatedly hyping up plans to build an “everything app” on Twitter/X as its central feature.

Apple’s Role in OpenAI’s Success

The lawsuit contends that Apple and OpenAI have an exclusive relationship where OpenAI’s ChatGPT has access to all iOS prompts by default, including in Siri, Apple’s built-in Writing Tools feature, and other “assistant integrations.” Apple has made ChatGPT its exclusive “default” generative AI chatbot, which X claims gives OpenAI a decisive leg up in the training and data used to improve its chatbot.

Apple has given OpenAI effectively exclusive access to its ecosystem of billions of users, whose text input data into Apple’s suite of tools—Siri, Dictation, Spotlight, etc.—is shared by default with OpenAI for its machine learning. That data helps train and improve OpenAI’s model, and Musk’s filing claims rivals cannot scale without access to such an enormous dataset.

In its filing, X estimates OpenAI’s market share to already be at least 80 percent, with the Apple exclusivity effectively guaranteeing OpenAI’s monopoly position. Without access to a base of existing users on iOS, Grok and other potential competitors are virtually shut out.

The filing directly compares Apple and OpenAI’s relationship to the exclusive search engine deal Apple struck with Google. In the deal, Google Search became the default option on Safari, while Google would pay Apple billions for the search contract. The U.S. Department of Justice has alleged that the agreement functionally entrenches Google’s monopoly search engine status.

Apple Rejects Integrations with Grok

In a similar vein, X claims that Apple repeatedly rebuffed attempts to integrate Grok with its iOS and other features. Musk’s suit specifically details Apple’s refusal to work with X on integrating Grok, including Apple declining requests to feature Grok in App Store searches and with the release of its “Imagine” integration. Beyond that, Apple is accused of manipulating rankings in App Store searches, as well as deliberately delaying Grok’s updates.

AI data is one issue, but at stake, Musk’s lawsuit implies, is the very future of AI-infused products on Apple’s platform. ChatGPT’s lead in user data will translate into a lead in functionality, says the filing. Siri received 1.5 billion user requests per day globally in 2024, and X estimates there were 3.5 billion user prompts sent to all generative AI models. If OpenAI is the exclusive recipient of the prompts from Apple devices, X says it has direct access to between 38 to 55 percent of all chatbot user interactions.

The filing also foresees potential consequences for consumers of Apple and OpenAI’s deal, including fewer choices, worse chatbots, and higher prices. Consumers may be forced to pay monopoly prices for iPhones if Apple pre-installs ChatGPT, the suit says. OpenAI, meanwhile, “has already announced plans to double the price of OpenAI Plus over the next four years,” says the filing. “OpenAI would not have this power unless it could affect marketwide subscription prices.”

The bigger risk for X, as the lawsuit frames it, is that Apple’s prioritization of OpenAI and ChatGPT could dissuade investment in potential competitors. Without the assurance that Apple is at least open to considering working with a variety of chatbots, investors may not value them as highly, potentially choking off access to funding and resources. The filing goes on to note that Big Tech could cherry-pick talent from startups that are blocked from Apple by not having similar funding.

Apple, meanwhile, is accused of willingly forgoing potential profits in partnering exclusively with OpenAI. X claims OpenAI gave ChatGPT to Apple for free, which means OpenAI paid to enter into the deal. Meanwhile, Apple has no plans to monetize its users or its products for a near-future release of ChatGPT, according to the filing, but it still pursued and made the deal exclusive.

Apple’s calculation, the filing charges, is that partnering with and aiding OpenAI is more valuable to the long-term control of the market than direct revenues. “By making the deal exclusive, Apple sacrificed the profits it would have earned by integrating multiple chatbots,” the filing argues. “The true motive was Apple and OpenAI’s shared goal of blocking competition.”

What’s at Stake for Musk and X

A court ruling in Musk’s favor could be the difference between success and failure for X and Grok, according to the lawsuit. Musk frames the stakes as existential for X, with the future of the company’s worth and ability to attract talent and investment, dependent on how Grok can function as part of X.

“Because Grok’s functionality is a key feature of the X app, the X app is more attractive the better Grok performs,” the filing reads. “Defendants’ conduct makes Grok less able to compete with ChatGPT, leading to fewer customers, less revenue, and ultimately a depressed enterprise value for X.”

OpenAI, for its part, had a short statement responding to Ars Technica. “It is evident that this lawsuit is part of an ongoing pattern of harassment by Elon Musk,” the firm said. Apple declined to comment to Ars Technica.

Should a court rule that Apple and OpenAI have engaged in anticompetitive behavior that entrenches their respective market positions, it could well determine both Grok’s and X’s future, as well as the competitive prospects for the next chapter of generative AI innovation.