Elon Musk's social media platform X and its artificial intelligence arm defended their antitrust case targeting a deal that integrated ChatGPT into iPhones, telling a Texas federal court that Apple and OpenAI are trying to preserve their respective monopolies.

The Musk-owned companies filed a response on Tuesday to motions from Apple and OpenAI seeking dismissal of the case, which alleges they joined forces to "quash" competitive threats to OpenAI's monopoly in generative artificial intelligence chatbots and Apple's monopoly in the smartphone market.

"Apple and OpenAI's illegal conduct has harmed not only competition and X and xAI, but also consumers, who are increasingly turning to generative AI for services ranging from content creation to having an engaging conversation," the response says. "If defendants' anticompetitive scheme is not stopped, Americans will be forced to use one monopolist's generative AI chatbot and be unable to benefit from super apps that allow consumers to pay less for smartphones."

Apple and OpenAI contended in their motions to dismiss late last month that the deal is not exclusive and that Apple has plans to partner with other chatbots in the future. They also argued that iPhone users can still freely access all of ChatGPT's competitors, including xAI's Grok, through browsers and mobile apps.

But X and xAI said in Tuesday's response that the deal makes ChatGPT the only AI chatbot integrated with Apple products, meaning competitors are blocked from accessing a key source of user prompts and a critical distribution channel, with Siri representing around 1.5 billion user requests worldwide each day.

"Apple and OpenAI concede that their agreement is exclusive by acknowledging — as they must — that no other chatbot is or ever has been integrated with Apple Intelligence," the response says.

The companies also said it does not matter if the written agreement between Apple and OpenAI includes language saying it's nonexclusive, "which defendants claim without substantiation," since the reality is no other chatbot is integrated with Apple products.

"What matters is what Apple and OpenAI have done and continue to do, not what they allegedly said to try to paper over their ongoing exclusionary conduct," the response says.

Apple had argued that the deal being nonexclusive "guts" the case, but said it should also be tossed because X and xAI are not competitors in the "smartphone" market they allege is being harmed.

In their response Tuesday, the Musk companies said the Grok and X apps are "super apps" that provide many of the same services as smartphones without being tied to a particular device and pose a threat to Apple's monopoly.

The suit also accuses Apple of favoring OpenAI's ChatGPT over rivals in its App Store by including it on curated lists while excluding other AI chatbots, foreclosing another key distribution channel for chatbots and super apps. Apple contended its curated lists have nothing to do with an alleged conspiracy, but the response alleges the preferencing was part of the overall deal.

"This is enough to allege that Apple and OpenAI together conspired to entrench their exclusive agreement through Apple's deprioritization of competing super apps," the response says.

The Musk-owned companies filed the case in August, calling the partnership between Apple and OpenAI a "tale of two monopolists" joining hands to keep rivals like xAI from competing in the generative AI space.

Since generative AI chatbots improve themselves based on continuous feedback from users, the suit alleges the "exclusive" arrangement means ChatGPT is the only generative AI chatbot that "benefits from billions of user prompts originating from hundreds of millions of iPhones."

The suit also contends the deal is intended to prevent competition from "super apps" being developed by X and xAI that they said are "multi-functional platforms" that offer many of the same features as smartphones, including social connectivity, financial services, and e-commerce and entertainment platforms.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman decided to keep the case in Fort Worth last week, after asking the sides to spell out their arguments for where the case belonged, finding the suit had, at best, flimsy ties to the district but noting that neither defendant had moved to transfer venue.

OpenAI's motion to dismiss late last month called the case part of a multipronged "lawfare" campaign from Musk that's aimed at gaining an advantage for his rival artificial intelligence company xAI and its Grok chatbot.

Musk has a separate case pending in California federal court targeting OpenAI's attempted shift to a for-profit business that also names Microsoft. OpenAI has hit back with counterclaims of unfair competition and business interference in the California suit.

Musk has pressed the attorneys general of California and Delaware to force an auction of OpenAI's assets over the profit shift as well.

Representatives for X, Apple and OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

X Corp. is represented by Alex More, Monica E. Gaudioso and Robert C. Rowe of Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP, Bradley Justus, Caroline P. Boisvert, Craig M. Reiser, Scott A. Eisman, Eva Yung and Christopher Erickson of Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP and Judd E. Stone II of Stone Hilton PLLC.

OpenAI is represented by Michael K. Hurst, Chris W. Patton and Andy Kim of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann LLP and William Savitt, Kevin S. Schwartz and Stephen D. Levandoski of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz.

Apple is represented by Dee J. Kelly Jr. and Julia G. Wisenberg of Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP and Emily Johnson Henn, Henry Liu, Lauren Willard Zehmer and Carol Szurkowski Weiland of Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is X Corp. et al. v. Apple Inc. et al., case number 4:25-cv-00914, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.