A blistering new court filing has escalated the already high-stakes legal war in the artificial intelligence industry, as OpenAI formally accused rival company xAI, founded by Elon Musk, of the systematic and intentional destruction of crucial evidence in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit. The accusation, filed in a United States federal court, alleges that xAI deliberately directed its employees to use "ephemeral messaging tools" that automatically delete communications, effectively wiping clean records that are central to the case’s discovery process[1][2][3][4][5]. This claim of "spoliation" of evidence dramatically reshapes the narrative of the original lawsuit, which pits Musk’s AI venture against OpenAI and its partner Apple[1]. OpenAI’s filing asserts that xAI, despite knowing it was planning to file a lawsuit and therefore was under a legal duty to preserve relevant documents, routed discussions about "every aspect of xAI's business" through these "message-destruction tools"[5][6][7]. The plaintiff in the antitrust case, xAI, is now the target of a motion for sanctions and a request for the court to appoint a forensic examiner to investigate the extent of the alleged deletion[1][2][3].

The core of the allegation centers on a calculated corporate policy to circumvent legal discovery obligations[5]. According to OpenAI’s court documents, xAI employees at every level were directed to use platforms like Signal and XChat, which feature settings to auto-delete messages and attachments in short timeframes, sometimes in a week or less[3][5][8][7]. OpenAI stated that the intent was clear, arguing in the filing that "Destroying evidence was the whole point," and that this conduct "leaves OpenAI and the other targets of Musk's litigation at an inequitable disadvantage"[1][5][6][7]. This alleged practice had a tangible and immediate impact on the discovery phase of the litigation, as OpenAI claims xAI has failed to produce a single non-public internal document concerning the substance of its own allegations[1][6][8]. Specifically, no internal emails, text messages, or messages from the disappearing chat applications were provided, which OpenAI argues would be necessary to substantiate the anti-competitive claims against them[3][4][6]. The absence of such evidence, particularly internal discussions about the market or competitive barriers, undermines the foundation of xAI's lawsuit just as the discovery phase is underway[9][5].

The explosive claim of evidence destruction is embedded within an antitrust lawsuit filed by xAI and Musk's social media company X against OpenAI and Apple[1][4]. The original complaint, filed last year, argues that Apple’s integration of OpenAI’s ChatGPT into its mobile operating system, iOS, constitutes an anti-competitive arrangement[1][2][4][7]. xAI contends that this exclusive partnership creates an uneven playing field, hindering the ability of rival AI chatbots, such as Musk’s Grok, to compete effectively in the generative AI market[1][4][9]. The lawsuit seeks billions of dollars in damages, claiming the alleged collusion restricts competition and deprives other AI developers of access to essential market channels[2][3][4][7]. A judge in Fort Worth, Texas, previously ruled that the case contained sufficient evidence to proceed, setting the stage for a trial[1][2][4]. OpenAI and Apple have consistently denied the allegations, arguing that the integration does not block other AI tools from competing[4][7]. The accusation of spoliation now becomes a significant counter-attack by the defendants, shifting the focus from the merits of the antitrust claims to the conduct of the plaintiff[9].

The legal implications of this development are severe, not just for the case but for the precedent it sets in the AI industry’s burgeoning legal landscape[6]. Under US law, litigants have a clear duty to preserve all relevant evidence once litigation is reasonably anticipated, a concept known as a litigation hold[3][4][5]. Intentional destruction of evidence, or "spoliation," can lead to serious court sanctions, which may include monetary penalties, an adverse jury instruction—informing the jury that the destroyed evidence should be presumed to have been unfavorable to the destroying party—or even the dismissal of the lawsuit entirely[6]. The court's decision on OpenAI's motion for sanctions will be closely watched, as it will determine the degree to which tech companies, especially those whose employees favor encrypted and ephemeral communication methods, must comply with traditional discovery rules[5]. Furthermore, the motion highlights a pattern of conduct, with OpenAI noting in its filing that Musk-controlled companies have been "repeatedly reprimanded by courts for failing to meet their discovery obligations" in the past, and that Musk has openly celebrated the use of ephemeral messaging[5].

Beyond the specific legal maneuvers, this incident underscores the intensely personal and professional rivalry that colors this high-profile legal showdown[1][2]. The dispute stems, in part, from the long-standing feud between Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, both of whom co-founded the AI company in its earlier, non-profit phase[1][2][9]. This context transforms the technical antitrust litigation into a clash of titans, with the fate of billion-dollar AI ventures and the future of competitive access to key digital platforms hanging in the balance[2]. The court's ruling on the evidence destruction motion will likely determine the ultimate trajectory of the antitrust suit, potentially crippling xAI’s claim for billions in damages or forcing an independent probe into the company’s internal communication practices[2]. The outcome will set a critical marker for discovery standards in an industry where rapid communication and data ephemerality are often considered part of the corporate culture[5][6].