The ongoing legal battle between Elon Musk’s xAI and OpenAI has taken a dramatic turn, with OpenAI accusing xAI of systematically destroying internal communications relevant to the antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The court has also denied xAI’s latest discovery request, marking another setback in what has become an increasingly contentious legal proceeding.
Court Rejects xAI’s Latest Discovery Request
A federal court this week denied xAI’s motion to compel document discovery from Jan Leike, OpenAI’s former Head of Alignment who departed the company in 2024 to join Anthropic. xAI had requested that Leike be added to the list of executives required to provide documents, arguing he likely possessed communications relevant to the case.
The court found the request inappropriate, stating that Leike and any documents he may have sent or received “do not appear to be relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.” The decision noted that any relevance would be minimal at best, given Leike’s lack of involvement in Apple’s AI implementation and the timing of his departure from OpenAI.
OpenAI had argued the request constituted a fishing expedition, noting that Leike worked on a separate project and was not involved in the relevant Apple AI partnership that forms the basis of xAI’s complaint.
Pattern of Disproportionate Discovery Requests
This marks the latest in a series of rejected discovery requests from xAI. In January, a South Korean court denied xAI’s request for documents from the Kakao super app, citing that the scope was disproportionate and overly broad. One week later, a U.S. court rejected xAI’s attempt to obtain source code from OpenAI, concluding the code was not relevant to the claims and fell outside the scope of discovery.
The lawsuit, originally filed in August 2025, accuses Apple and OpenAI of colluding to prevent competition in the App Store’s large language model space. However, legal filings have suggested the case may have less to do with App Store rankings than initially presented.
OpenAI Alleges Systematic Destruction of Evidence
In a potentially more serious development, OpenAI has accused xAI of directing employees to use ephemeral messaging tools that automatically delete texts and documents. OpenAI claims this practice amounts to systematic evidence destruction, particularly troubling given that xAI was aware of its plans to file suit and was under a legal obligation to preserve relevant communications.
According to OpenAI’s filing, xAI has “not produced a single nonpublic document concerning the substance of their allegations or that OpenAI could use in its defense.” The company states that xAI has produced no emails, text messages, Signal messages, or internal chat messages of any kind.
OpenAI’s motion alleges that “communications about every aspect of xAI’s business, including matters highly relevant to this case, have been routed through these message-destruction tools, even as [xAI] knew they were planning to sue and were under a legal duty to preserve.”
Legal Implications of Evidence Preservation Failures
In legal proceedings, all parties are required to preserve and produce internal communications relevant to the case through a process called discovery. Failure to comply can result in court sanctions, including financial penalties or adverse judgments.
While courts have previously criticized major technology companies for similar conduct, actual penalties have been inconsistent. In a recent case against Epic Games, a federal judge described Google’s failure to preserve internal communications as “deeply troubling” and stated he had “never seen anything so egregious,” though Google ultimately faced no sanctions beyond the judicial criticism.
The court has not yet ruled on OpenAI’s motion regarding the alleged evidence destruction, and neither company has issued public statements on the allegations.
What This Means for Apple
While Apple is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, the company has largely remained on the sidelines as xAI and OpenAI battle over discovery issues. The allegations of evidence destruction and the pattern of rejected discovery requests may suggest challenges ahead for xAI in substantiating its claims against both companies.
Apple has previously characterized xAI’s claims as lacking merit, and these procedural setbacks may support that position as the case progresses through the legal system.
FAQ
Q: What is xAI accusing Apple and OpenAI of doing?
A: xAI’s lawsuit alleges that Apple and OpenAI colluded to prevent competition involving large language models in the App Store, though the specific basis of these claims has been questioned in legal filings.
Q: What happens if xAI is found to have destroyed evidence?
A: Courts can impose sanctions for failure to preserve evidence, ranging from monetary penalties to adverse legal judgments. However, enforcement has been inconsistent in similar cases involving technology companies.
Q: When is the case expected to be resolved?
A: No trial date has been publicly announced. Complex antitrust cases of this nature typically take years to resolve, particularly given the ongoing discovery disputes.
MacReview Verdict
The allegations of evidence destruction represent a serious escalation in what was already a contentious legal proceeding. If substantiated, OpenAI’s claims could significantly undermine xAI’s position in the lawsuit and potentially expose the company to sanctions.
The pattern of rejected discovery requests suggests xAI may be facing difficulties building its case through traditional legal channels. For Apple, these developments may reinforce the company’s position that the lawsuit lacks substantive merit. As the discovery phase continues, the court’s handling of the evidence preservation allegations will likely prove critical to the ultimate trajectory of this case.
