Singapore has rejected several document requests from xAI, submitted as part of Elon Musk's lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI. The authority classifies the requests as inadmissible fishing expeditions – thus aligning itself with South Korea in this regard.
Elon Musk's attempt to gather international evidence for his lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI has once again failed. Following South Korea, Singapore has now also rejected a request from xAI seeking to compel the release of internal documents from several companies based there. The underlying lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI, filed in the summer of 2025, revolves around two allegations – the second of which is the reason why xAI wants to access data from companies in Asia in the first place.
What the dispute between xAI and Apple is about
The lawsuit, brought by Musk's company xAI – now owned by SpaceX – rests on two key arguments. First, it accuses Apple and OpenAI of colluding to unfairly favor ChatGPT in the App Store. Second, it claims that Apple's App Store rules prevent Musk's platform X from developing into a so-called super app.
For its second argument, xAI needs comparative data from established super-apps – and these predominantly originate from Asian markets. Therefore, the company applied to the relevant US court to request documents from foreign companies. This is based on the Hague Convention on the Evidence of Foreign Legal Evidence, an international legal instrument that allows courts in civil and commercial matters to obtain evidence from abroad.
Why Singapore rejects the four requests
The now-public rejection concerns attempts to obtain documents from several companies in Singapore – including Gojek, Grab, GrabTaxi, and WeChat. In a letter to the relevant US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Singapore Attorney General's Office stated that it could not grant any of the four requests because they did not comply with the Hague Evidence Convention in several respects.
First, the underlying proceedings concern antitrust and competition law allegations – an area Singapore considers outside the scope of the Convention. Second, the requests are not formulated precisely enough with regard to the person or company to be questioned. In the case of Gojek and Grab, the company names used in the requests do not even match the entities registered in the Singaporean Companies Register.
Third, the requests were simply too broad. Instead of requesting specifically named documents, xAI requested entire categories – such as app usage, in-app payments, revenue, app store placements, app store functions on Apple, super apps, customer switching behavior, and plans to integrate generative AI into these apps. South Korea had previously criticized precisely this sweeping approach. The Attorney General's Office therefore concluded that the requests appeared to be part of a "fishing expedition," an inadmissible search for evidence not covered by the Hague Convention.
A sample of rejected international requests
Singapore is not the first setback of this kind. Earlier this year, South Korea's Supreme Court rejected a request from xAI to obtain documents from the super-app operator Kakao – citing the same central reason: overly broad wording. Other requests submitted by xAI under the Hague Convention concern companies in China, Indonesia, Japan, India, and Vietnam and are still pending.
It is striking that even the US court has in the past described xAI's actions as excessive and rejected individual requests for evidence. While the US justice system initially largely approved such foreign requests, implementation on the ground has proven difficult. At the same time, the proceedings in the US have become more intense in terms of personnel since the court added Apple's software chief, Craig Federighi, to the list of those required to submit evidence.
Apple's stance against surveillance prevails
For Apple and OpenAI, the repeated rejections from abroad are a welcome sign. The less international comparative data xAI can gather, the harder it becomes for Musk's company to substantiate its super-app argument with solid figures. The fact that Singapore is now the second country to deem the requests too far-reaching reinforces a pattern that Apple's defense can rely on. Nothing is definitively decided yet – the pending requests in several other countries should show whether xAI refines its evidentiary strategy or continues to encounter resistance internationally. (Image: Shutterstock / Mdisk)
- Apple TV beats Netflix in new quality ranking
- iOS 26.5.1 and macOS Tahoe 26.5.1 fix two bugs
- All systems glow: Apple's WWDC teaser hints at the new Siri
- Nvidia RTX Spark and Dell XPS 13 challenge Apple
- Apple Watch data sheds light on sleep during menopause
- Apple releases new report on conflict minerals
- Apple showcases its image AI research at CVPR 2026
- Claude Opus 4.8: Anthropic's new AI model is here
- How iPad and Mac are helping to save the Cherokee language
- Amazon is also acquiring Apple's 20 percent stake in Globalstar
- Study: People who cancel an annual subscription almost never come back
- Meta launches Facebook Plus, Instagram Plus and WhatsApp Plus worldwide
- Apple publishes help document to differentiate between Creator Studio apps
- WhatsApp will soon allow iPhone users to send documents to Meta AI
- iPhone Theft: Apple Plans Automatic Lock When Snatched
- Apple releases new AirTag 2 firmware 3.0.49
- Apple adds CVE details for older and current updates
- Apple patent outlines true underwater photography for iPhones
- Apple Patent: Vision Pro could become modular and upgradeable
- Apple is working on an Apple Pencil with realistic haptics
- Apple case designed to connect iPhone to satellites
