{"id":63641,"date":"2026-02-03T23:06:13","date_gmt":"2026-02-03T22:06:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=63641"},"modified":"2026-02-03T23:07:21","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T22:07:21","slug":"xai-is-alleged-to-have-destroyed-evidence-in-the-antitrust-case-against-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/xai-soll-im-kartellverfahren-gegen-apple-beweise-vernichtet-haben","title":{"rendered":"xAI is alleged to have destroyed evidence in the antitrust case against Apple"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the antitrust case between Apple, OpenAI, and xAI, the focus is increasingly shifting away from the App Store itself and toward questions of evidence and procedural discipline. While xAI continues to accuse Apple and OpenAI of anti-competitive behavior, the company now faces serious accusations itself. It is alleged to have systematically destroyed evidence and disregarded court disclosure requirements. Several recent court decisions paint a picture of a case that is becoming increasingly opaque.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute between Apple, OpenAI, and xAI has been marked by mutual accusations for months. Initially, the claim was that Apple and OpenAI had colluded<\/a> to limit competition from Large Language Models in the App Store. However, the focus has now shifted to xAI's own methods. Courts in several countries have rejected the company's applications, using strong language in their rulings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allegations of excessive document requirements<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

xAI has repeatedly been accused of conducting so-called "fishing expeditions." These are very broad requests for internal documents, the connection of which to the actual points of contention often remains unclear. Observers of the proceedings know that the dispute is only tangentially related to specific app store rankings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back in January of this year, a court in South Korea rejected<\/a> a request from xAI for extensive documentation related to its Kakao super-app. The court reasoned that the scope of the request was disproportionate and too broad. Just one week later, a similar setback occurred in the US. There, the court ruled<\/a> that OpenAI's source code was not relevant to the claims being made and therefore not subject to disclosure requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court halts application concerning Jan Leike<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Another point of contention concerned Jan Leike, the former head of the Alignment department at OpenAI. Leike left OpenAI in 2024 and moved to Anthropic. xAI requested that he be included on the list of current and former executives who should be compelled to produce documents as part of the evidentiary hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The justification given was that Leike had likely sent or received documents relevant to the claims or the defense. However, the court did not accept this argument. In its ruling, it clarified that Leike had neither been involved in the implementation of Apple's AI nor had he worked at OpenAI at any relevant time. His emails and documents were neither appropriate nor truly relevant to the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OpenAI had previously stated that the application was based on pure speculation. Leike had been working on a separate project and had no connection to the Apple AI integration at the heart of the legal dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OpenAI raises allegations of evidence destruction<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In parallel, OpenAI is leveling serious accusations against xAI. According to OpenAI, the company allegedly instructed employees to use so-called ephemeral messaging tools. These services automatically delete messages and documents after a short period. OpenAI claims that a large portion of xAI's internal communication was conducted via such systems, despite the company's knowledge that a lawsuit was being prepared and that legal retention obligations existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, OpenAI accuses xAI of withholding relevant documents. According to the company, xAI has not yet submitted a single non-public document that substantiates its allegations or could help OpenAI in its defense. No emails, text messages, or chats via Signal or XChat have been submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discovery obligations and a well-known comparative case<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In antitrust proceedings, all parties are obligated to disclose internal communications that could be relevant to the case. This process is known as discovery. Failure to comply with these obligations can result in legal sanctions, including fines or procedural disadvantages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A frequently cited comparison case involves Google in the proceedings against Epic Games. At that time, a US federal judge criticized Google's failure to retain internal communications as "deeply troubling" and stated that he had never seen anything like it. Despite the clear rebuke, the company received only a warning, without any further sanctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Current status of the proceedings<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In the ongoing case between Apple, OpenAI, and xAI, the court has not yet ruled on the motion concerning the alleged destruction of evidence. None of the companies involved have publicly commented on these specific allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, legal documents, which Bloomberg<\/a> and others have reported on, reveal that OpenAI considers the destruction of evidence a central issue. According to OpenAI, this would unfairly disadvantage them and other defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xAI vs. Apple & OpenAI: The legal dispute reaches a new level beyond competition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The antitrust dispute surrounding Apple is increasingly becoming a battle over procedural rules and transparency. While xAI continues to claim it wants to uncover anti-competitive agreements, the courts and the opposing side primarily see excessive claims, speculative demands, and now also the accusation of systematic destruction of evidence. The seriousness of these accusations will only become clear when the court reaches a decision. What is already clear is that the case extends far beyond issues concerning the App Store and touches upon fundamental standards for handling internal communication in major tech litigation. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Mamun_Sheikh)<\/p>\n\n\n\n