“Fraction of a fraction of a fraction”
that Apple gave ChatGPT a monopoly over prompts “baseless”. OpenAI and Apple have moved together to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s xAI. The lawsuit claimed that ChatGPT’s integration into a set of iPhone features “handful” violated antitrust laws, giving OpenAI a monopoly over prompts and Apple a way to block competitors in the smartphone market.
Musk filed the lawsuit in August, after he raged at Apple for not listing Grok in its editorially curated list of “Must Have” applications, where ChatGPT was frequently listed.
According Musk, Apple’s linking of ChatGPT with Siri and other native iPhone functions gave OpenAI exclusive data that it can use to maintain its dominance on the chatbot market. OpenAI and Apple have mocked Musk’s math, urging the courts to agree that xAI’s lawsuit is doomed.
Openai””https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/xAI-v-OpenAI-Apple-Motion-to-Dismiss-9-30-25.pdf””> Musk was reluctant to even estimate “hazard a guess” what portion of the market is being closed by the OpenAI/Apple agreement. OpenAI and Apple pointed out that xAI claimed the ChatGPT integration could give OpenAI “up to 55 percent” about the potential chatbot prompts on the market. This could be anywhere between 0 and 55 percent. OpenAI argued that
Musk’s company arrived at this vague estimation by doing “back-of-the-envelope math,” ; therefore, the court should reject Musk’s complaint. OpenAI explained that math “was evidently calculated by assuming that Siri fields ‘1.5 billion user requests per day globally,’ then dividing that quantity by the ‘total prompts for generative AI chatbots in 2024,'”. OpenAI explained that “ignore the facts” these estimates
were”ignore the facts”. OpenAI stated that users who opt in must link their ChatGPT accounts for OpenAI’s training to be based on their data. This further limits the pool of potential prompts. OpenAI claimed that Musk’s logic was
“the relevant set of Siri prompts thus cannot plausibly be 1.5 billion per day, but is instead an unknown, unpleaded fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that number.”
Additionally OpenAI mocked Musk because he used 2024 statistics. Apple’s filingnoted that Musk’s calculations appeared “to rest on speculative and implausible assumptions that the agreement gives ChatGPT exclusive access to all Siri requests from all Apple devices (including older models), and that OpenAI may use all such requests to train ChatGPT and achieve scale.”
“Not all Siri requests” resulting in ChatGPT prompts which OpenAI could train on.
OpenAI reminded court of Grok’s MechaHitler controversy
OpenAI argued Musk’s lawsuit was part of a harassment pattern that OpenAI had previously described as “unrelenting” after ChatGPT’s successful debut. OpenAI pointed out that the integration was launched around the time Musk removed the “woke filters” which caused Grok to declare themselves “MechaHitler.” for Apple, OpenAI argued. Apple did not mention the Grok scandal, but in a footnote they confirmed that “vetting of partners is particularly important given some of the concerns about generative AI chatbots, including on child safety issues, nonconsensual intimate imagery, and ‘jailbreaking’—feeding input to a chatbot so it ignores its own safety guardrails.”
a similar logic was used to Apple’s decision to not highlight Grok as an “Must Have” application. Apple made a note of Musk’s public rant regarding Grok’s exclusion from X. However, instead of making any changes, xAI brought the lawsuit. Apple also took the time to point out that Musk was fixated by the fact that his charting applications never made the “Must Have Apps” listing, suggesting that Apple should always mirror “Top Charts,” that tracks popular downloads.
“That assumes that the Apple-curated Must-Have Apps List must be distorted if it does not strictly parrot App Store Top Charts,” Apple argued. Apple argued that Musk’s argument to “Apple cannot partner with OpenAI to create an innovative feature for iPhone users without simultaneously partnering with every other generative AI chatbot—regardless of quality, privacy or safety considerations, technical feasibility, stage of development, or commercial terms.”
“No facts plausibly” support for xAI’s xAI apps “assertion that Apple intentionally ‘deprioritized'” was inappropriate.
Apple also noted that xAI was not a competitor or consumer of the smartphone industry where it claims competition is being harmed. Apple urged the court not to accept Musk’s theory, that Apple is incentivized by OpenAI in order to prevent xAI from building a “super app” which would make smartphones obsolete. Apple said that Musk’s super-app dream is at least a decade away. They also argued that undeveloped apps shouldn’t be used to block Apple’s plan to integrate sophisticated chatbots into its service.
“Antitrust laws do not require that, and for good reason: imposing such a rule on businesses would slow innovation, reduce quality, and increase costs, all ultimately harming the very consumers the antitrust laws are meant to protect,” Apple argued. Musk’s bizarre smartphone market claim explained
Apple alleged Musk’s “grievance” could be “reduced to displeasure that Apple has not yet ‘integrated with any other generative AI chatbots’ beyond ChatGPT, such as those created by xAI, Google, and Anthropic.”
Apple noted in a footnote that xAI argued that Musk’s social platform X would “may be required to integrate all other chatbots—including ChatGPT—on its own social media platform.”
However, antitrust law does not work that way. Apple urged the court to reject xAI claims of alleged harms that xAI “rely on a multi-step chain of speculation on top of speculation.” Apple summarized that xAI contends: “if Apple never integrated ChatGPT,” Grok would be chosen by consumers over other generative AI chatbots.
2. The additional prompts will allow Grok to achieve scale and quality that it couldn’t otherwise achieve.
3. The X app will grow in popularity as it is integrated with Grok.
4. X and xAI are therefore better positioned in the future to build “super apps”which is defined by the complaint as “multi-functional” applications that offer “social connectivity and messaging, financial services, e-commerce, and entertainment.”
Consumers may choose to use “super app” from X for different functions once developed.
6. “Super apps” would replace a lot of the functionality in smartphones, and consumers would be less concerned about the quality of the physical phone and instead rely on these hypothetical “super applications.”
7.
8. iPhone users would decide to replace their iPhones with more “basic smartphones” with “super apps.”
Apple insisted that nothing in its OpenAI deal prevents Musk from building his super apps, while noting that integration of a single chatbot is a “major undertaking” which requires a concession.
8 iPhone users would replace their iPhones by more”basic smartphones””super apps.”
Apple insists that nothing in the OpenAI deal prevents Musk to build his super apps. Musk also notes that integrating Grok in X is a”major undertaking”which requires “substantial investment.” That “a concession” alone “highlights the massive resources Apple would have to devote to integrating each AI chatbot into Apple Intelligence” while navigating possible user safety risks
Apple also reminded the Court that it had always planned to integrate chatbots in its native features, after investing and testing Apple Intelligence. It relied on what Apple believes is the best chatbot available today. OpenAI, which backed Apple, noted that Musk’s complaints seemed to cherry-pick Sundar Pichai’s testimony, claiming “Google could not reach an agreement to integrate” Gemini, “with Apple because Apple had decided to integrate ChatGPT.”
“The full testimony recorded in open court reveals Mr. Pichai attesting to his understanding that ‘Apple plans to expand to other providers for Generative AI distribution’ and that ‘[a]s CEO of Google, [he is] hoping to execute a Gemini distribution agreement with Apple’ later in 2025,” Openai.
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
