Musk vs. Apple moves from charts to court, but proof is thin

Apple’s chart says one thing; Elon Musk says another. On Monday, he declared that Apple is making it “impossible” for any AI app besides ChatGPT to hit No. 1 and that xAI will file suit. The charge is sweeping. The evidence is not.

What’s actually new

Musk’s complaint targets two levers in Apple’s marketplace: the algorithmic “Top Free Apps” chart and the human-curated “Must Have” rows. Grok currently hovers mid-single digits on the free chart, while ChatGPT often sits first. X, which Musk calls the “No. 1 news app,” is not featured in Apple’s editorial lanes. That omission is part of his claim.

Sam Altman fired back within hours, pointing to longstanding allegations that Musk boosts his own posts on X while down-ranking rivals. The jab matters less for who’s right than for what it reveals: platform owners attack each other’s curation because distribution is the new moat. The fight is public. The facts are still thin.

Evidence, so far

Musk has not produced data showing Apple re-ordered charts or suppressed Grok beyond standard policy. Apple has not commented. And the absolute claim—that only OpenAI can reach No. 1—already met a counterexample this year when DeepSeek briefly topped the U.S. App Store’s free chart. Charts move. Editorial slots are subjective. Claims of rigging need receipts. They’re missing.

Apple’s OpenAI tie-up is real, though. In June 2024, Apple announced system-level access to ChatGPT inside Siri and system services. That integration can create perceived advantages in consumer mindshare without touching Store rankings. Perception is powerful. Proof requires more.

The regulatory backdrop

Apple’s App Store governance is under heavier legal light than at any point since 2020. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple violated her 2021 anti-steering injunction, barred Apple from levying a 27% “link-out” fee, and referred potential criminal contempt to prosecutors. In June, the Ninth Circuit declined to pause that order. Separately, Brussels fined Apple €500 million in April for breaching the EU’s Digital Markets Act on steering restrictions, after imposing a €1.84 billion penalty in 2024 in the music-streaming case. None of those decisions turn on chart placement. All of them constrain Apple’s freedom to shape distribution economics.

That context matters because Musk is not arguing prices or payment flows. He is alleging ranking favoritism and editorial bias. Courts typically give wide berth to curation unless plaintiffs show discrimination that harms competition, not just a competitor. That’s a higher bar.

Marketplace mechanics

Apple blends algorithmic charts—largely driven by install velocity and retention—with prominent editorial shelves hand-built by the App Store team. The first is math. The second is taste plus policy. Apple defends the latter as consumer guidance, not an ad product. Musk calls it a gate.

If xAI sues, discovery would likely chase three questions. First, whether internal communications show policy exceptions for OpenAI or penalties for Grok beyond published rules. Second, whether editorial decisions tracked non-content factors like corporate disputes or PR cycles. Third, whether ranking inputs were adjusted in ways that disproportionately hurt a narrow set of AI chatbots. Absent those, courts tend to see curation as protected editorial judgment. That’s not new.

Competitive infrastructure

This clash is about distribution, not model quality. Mobile storefronts are where mainstream users meet AI. Placement, prompts, and default routes steer demand at the moment of curiosity. That’s why OpenAI’s system-level hooks with Apple loom large even if Store charts are clean. And it’s why Musk is pressing on “Must Have” inclusion. A front-door feature is worth weeks of ads. One row can move a market.

There’s also a personal layer. Musk and Altman co-founded OpenAI, split in 2018, and have litigated and subtweeted ever since. The latest exchange continues a pattern: strategic disagreements reframed as integrity disputes. The audience is not just the court. It’s users, developers, and regulators deciding whom to trust as AI becomes a utility.

Limits and caveats

Two things can be true. Apple can fairly run charts and still take heat for picking winners through editorial curation and OS integrations. And Musk can drive real installs for Grok while over-claiming the conspiracy. Today’s record shows strong rhetoric, plausible incentives, and no hard proof. That could change in discovery. For now, it’s theater with stakes.

Why this matters:

• App store curation and defaults are becoming de facto infrastructure policy for consumer AI, with legal exposure if favoritism crosses into foreclosure.
• The outcome will signal how far platform owners can go in privileging partners inside AI distribution without running afoul of antitrust.