South Korea Rejects xAI's Broad Document Request in Apple App Store Lawsuit

The South Korean government has officially rejected xAI's request for documents from Kakao Corporation, dealing a blow to Elon Musk's legal strategy against Apple's App Store. The rejection, issued by the Director of International Affairs at Korea's Supreme Court, cites Article 23 of the Hague Convention, which allows signatory countries to refuse broad pre-trial discovery requests.

The Legal Framework Behind the Rejection

The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters provides the legal basis for xAI's international document requests. Under Article 5, countries can request judicial assistance from other signatory nations. However, Article 23 allows countries to declare they won't execute letters of request issued for pre-trial discovery purposes.

South Korea has made exactly this declaration, meaning it won't fulfill broad, fishing-expedition-style requests. The Korean court's response specifically states that evidence requests "must specify the materials sought in detail rather than broadly stating them as all-related documents."

This isn't a complete rejection of xAI's right to seek evidence, but a procedural requirement for more precision. xAI's original request was notoriously broad, asking Kakao to produce:

• All documents "in Your possession, custody, or control"
• Communications with attorneys, accountants, investigators, and consultants
• Financial and strategic documents about super app distribution
• Revenue data from the U.S. and worldwide
• App Store ranking information
• Plans for incorporating generative AI technology
• Impact assessments of Apple's policies on app distribution

The Strategic Context: Super Apps and App Store Control

This legal battle stems from Elon Musk's ambition to transform X (formerly Twitter) into a "super app"—a model that dominates Asian markets but has struggled to gain traction in the West. Super apps bundle multiple services—ride-hailing, food delivery, payments, streaming, and messaging—into a single platform.

Musk has repeatedly criticized Apple's partnership with OpenAI, claiming it unfairly advantages ChatGPT over Grok, xAI's chatbot. However, the lawsuit focuses on a broader antitrust argument: that Apple's App Store rules unlawfully restrain competition from super apps to prevent users from switching away from iPhones.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple's partnership with OpenAI reinforces these restrictions against super apps, creating an ecosystem where integrated AI services benefit from preferential treatment while super apps face barriers.

xAI's International Evidence-Gathering Strategy

Facing Apple's dominance in the U.S. market, xAI has turned to international law to gather evidence from Asian super app companies. The company sent similar requests to Alipay in China and other super app developers, using the Hague Convention as a legal tool to compel document production.

This strategy reflects a common tactic in international antitrust litigation: when domestic discovery is limited, plaintiffs seek evidence from foreign jurisdictions where the alleged anti-competitive effects are most pronounced. Asian markets provide perfect test cases for super app viability, having successfully implemented the model that xAI wants to replicate with X.

However, the Korean rejection exposes a vulnerability in this approach. Countries like China and Korea have strong data localization laws and privacy regulations that make broad document requests particularly sensitive. The Korean court's response suggests other jurisdictions may apply similar scrutiny.

What Comes Next for xAI's Lawsuit

The rejection doesn't end xAI's case, but it forces a strategic pivot. The company now has several options:

1. Refine the request: xAI can submit a more specific, narrow request that complies with Korean law. This might involve requesting particular document categories with clear date ranges and defined scope.

2. Alternative jurisdictions: xAI could focus on countries with more permissive discovery rules or where Apple has clearer business operations.

3. Domestic evidence: The company may need to rely more heavily on U.S.-based evidence and expert testimony about super app economics and Apple's market power.

4. Appeal or negotiation: xAI could seek to negotiate directly with Kakao or appeal the Korean court's decision, though success seems unlikely given the clear statutory basis.

Broader Implications for App Store Litigation

This case highlights the growing complexity of international antitrust litigation in the digital economy. As tech companies operate globally but face regulation locally, legal strategies must navigate conflicting jurisdictional rules.

For Apple, the Korean rejection represents a tactical victory. It limits xAI's ability to gather potentially damaging evidence about how App Store policies affect super apps in markets where they thrive. For other developers challenging Apple's rules, this precedent suggests that international evidence-gathering will face significant hurdles.

The case also underscores the challenges of regulating global tech platforms. Apple's App Store policies have worldwide effects, but enforcement mechanisms remain largely national. This disconnect creates opportunities for companies to forum-shop and challenges for plaintiffs seeking comprehensive evidence.

The Super App Question Remains Unanswered

Ultimately, the core question—whether Apple's App Store rules unlawfully restrain super apps—remains unresolved. The Korean rejection doesn't address the merits of xAI's claims, only the procedural path for gathering evidence.

If xAI can refine its requests and succeed in obtaining documents from Kakao or other super app companies, those materials could provide crucial evidence about:

• How super apps actually perform in markets without Apple's restrictions
• Whether App Store policies create artificial barriers to super app adoption
• The competitive dynamics between integrated platforms and Apple's ecosystem

Without this evidence, xAI's case may rely more heavily on economic theory and expert analysis rather than concrete data from successful super app implementations.

What This Means for Mobile Developers

For developers building apps on iOS and Android, this case represents another front in the ongoing battle over platform control. While the immediate impact is limited to xAI's specific lawsuit, the broader trend toward international legal challenges against platform policies could affect:

• Future App Store rule changes
• Cross-platform development strategies
• The viability of super app models in Western markets
• The balance of power between platform owners and developers

The Korean government's careful, procedural response suggests that while countries may be sympathetic to antitrust concerns, they won't tolerate overly broad fishing expeditions. This sets a precedent for future international evidence requests in tech litigation.

As the case progresses, mobile developers should watch for potential changes to App Store policies that could affect super app development, cross-platform integration, and AI feature implementation. The outcome could influence whether X and similar platforms can successfully challenge Apple's ecosystem dominance.

For now, xAI faces the challenge of refining its legal strategy while Apple maintains its position that its App Store rules are necessary for security, privacy, and user experience. The Korean rejection is a setback, but the legal battle—and the broader debate about platform control—continues.

---

Related Resources:

• Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad
• xAI's official website
• Apple App Store Review Guidelines
• Kakao Corporation

Further Reading:

• The Economics of Super Apps
• App Store Antitrust Litigation Timeline
• Hague Evidence Convention: A Practical Guide