X and SpaceXAI drop their antitrust case against Apple, keep OpenAI in court

X Corp. and SpaceXAI LLC asked a federal judge in Fort Worth on 14 September to dismiss their antitrust claims against Apple, with prejudice. Apple does not oppose the motion. The filing, docketed as document 385 in X Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00914, says the plaintiffs "have resolved their claims" against the iPhone maker. It does not say how.

The same lawsuit against OpenAI continues. The plaintiffs were explicit: they do not seek to dismiss claims against OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI L.L.C. or OpenAI Opco.

The original complaint, filed last year, said Apple broke antitrust law by wiring ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence on iPhones and other devices and thereby shutting rivals out of the on-device assistant market. X and SpaceXAI, both in Elon Musk's camp, argued that the tie-up locked up smartphones and generative chatbots. Apple and OpenAI said the arrangement was never exclusive. OpenAI also called the suit part of a pattern of harassment by Musk, who co-founded the lab and later left it.

What "resolved" does not tell you

Dismissal with prejudice means X and SpaceXAI cannot sue Apple again on these claims. That usually follows a settlement. It can also follow a decision that the case against one defendant is no longer worth the cost. The motion gives neither a dollar figure nor a distribution promise nor a change in how Siri calls a model. Reuters, Bloomberg and the court paper all stop at the same sentence: resolved, dismissed, unopposed.

Plenty has moved since the complaint was written. Apple's working relationship with OpenAI has cooled. Other model makers have been mentioned for future on-device slots. If Apple has opened a path for Grok or another SpaceXAI model, that would explain a quiet filing. If Apple simply paid to end a Texas case, that would explain it too. Neither version is on the docket.

The live case is now X and SpaceXAI versus OpenAI alone, still in the Northern District of Texas, still alleging an unlawful chatbot monopoly. That claim does not need Apple as a co-defendant. It does need facts about market definition and conduct that survive without the iPhone distribution story. Judge-watching the Apple piece was the easy headline. The harder case just got more isolated.

Why the venue still matters

Fort Worth is not San Francisco. Musk's companies filed in the Northern District of Texas and kept the fight there. Apple was the defendant that made the case look like a platform case. With Apple gone, it looks more like the latest chapter in Musk against OpenAI, a dispute that already runs through other courts and public letters.

For app makers the practical question is unchanged until someone publishes a new contract. Can a rival assistant sit inside Apple Intelligence on the same terms ChatGPT had? The dismissal does not answer that. It only takes Apple out of this docket. Anyone who wants the terms will have to wait for an Apple announcement or for discovery in the OpenAI half of the case, if that half ever gets there.