OpenAI Says Apple ChatGPT Deal Doesn’t Shut Out AI Rivals

In its latest arguments, OpenAI maintained that no reasonable jury could conclude the Apple arrangement amounts to an exclusive agreement based on the size of a pricing provision, according to a November 4 report by legal news service MLex.

The ChatGPT developer argued that X and other competitors remain free to negotiate their own commercial arrangements with Apple and distribute competing AI products through alternative channels, including the iPhone maker’s App Store.

OpenAI contends that rivals could secure similar opportunities by presenting Apple with commercially attractive proposals, according to MLex. The company is seeking summary judgment, a ruling that would resolve the claims without a trial.

The dispute is part of a broader legal confrontation involving Musk and OpenAI over competition in the rapidly expanding generative AI market.

X Corp. and Musk’s artificial intelligence business initially sued Apple and OpenAI in August 2025, alleging that their partnership unlawfully restricted competition in markets for smartphones and generative AI chatbots.

The plaintiffs argued that integrating ChatGPT into Apple’s devices gave OpenAI preferential access to iPhone users while placing rival services, including Musk’s Grok chatbot, at a competitive disadvantage.

Apple and OpenAI have denied engaging in anticompetitive conduct.

The litigation narrowed in September 2026, when Musk’s companies withdrew their claims against Apple while continuing their case against OpenAI, according to Reuters. The court filing did not publicly explain the terms of the resolution.

Dispute Over Market Access

At the center of the remaining case is whether OpenAI’s commercial relationship with Apple effectively prevents competing chatbot developers from securing comparable access to consumers.

Read more: OpenAI Seeks Dismissal of Musk’s AI Antitrust Case, Citing SpaceX SEC Filings

OpenAI argues that the existence of a preferred commercial partnership does not, by itself, establish unlawful exclusivity or demonstrate that competitors have been substantially excluded from the market.

In its September 22 request for summary judgment, OpenAI also pointed to statements made by X about its own competitive position, according to an earlier MLex report.

The company cited disclosures in which X described its technological capabilities and competitive advantages in artificial intelligence, arguing that those representations undermined claims that the Apple arrangement had significantly impaired its ability to compete.

X rejected that position in an October 21 court filing, maintaining that the evidence could support a jury finding that the Apple-OpenAI agreement operated as an exclusionary arrangement.

According to MLex, X argued that OpenAI was improperly asking the court to resolve disputed factual questions that should be considered at trial.

X contended that the arrangement could violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the principal US federal law governing anticompetitive agreements and monopolization.

Earlier Court Ruling

The case previously survived an attempt to dismiss it in November 2025.

US District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas, allowed the lawsuit to proceed at that stage, while emphasizing that his decision did not determine whether the plaintiffs’ allegations were valid, Reuters reported at the time.

The latest summary judgment proceedings present a different legal question: whether the evidence developed in the litigation is sufficient to require a trial.

Source: MLex