A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X Corp. and xAI against Apple and OpenAI will remain in Fort Worth, even though none of the companies have significant connections to the area. The decision, handed down by Judge Mark Pittman, highlights a broader issue of “forum-shopping” — the strategic selection of judicial venues perceived as more favorable to a case. The ruling adds a new layer of intrigue to the escalating legal and competitive tensions within the artificial intelligence industry.

A Courtroom Choice with Minimal Ties

Judge Pittman’s four-page order, marked by dry humor, noted that the case has “at best minimal connections” to Fort Worth. He went so far as to recommend that the tech firms consider moving their headquarters there if they are so committed to litigating in the district. Pittman’s remarks reflected growing frustration among judges regarding plaintiffs who intentionally file cases in divisions known for particular judicial leanings.

Despite Pittman’s criticisms, the case will stay in Fort Worth because neither Apple nor OpenAI filed a motion to transfer venue before the court’s deadline. The judge acknowledged that while the companies have only “tenuous connections” to the district — limited to Apple’s retail presence and OpenAI’s national availability of ChatGPT — he was bound by procedural constraints to respect the plaintiffs’ choice of venue.

The Larger Context: Forum-Shopping and Judicial Politics

The Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas has become a favored venue for conservative plaintiffs and business groups. The division is presided over by just two judges, both appointed by Republican presidents, creating an environment that some legal analysts say offers predictability in outcomes.

Judge Pittman himself, appointed by former President Donald Trump, has previously criticized this tactic. His pointed remark — that “venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a plaintiff’s whim” — underscored his discomfort with the growing trend. Still, Pittman noted that recent appellate rulings have constrained his discretion to relocate cases even when connections to the venue are weak.

The Lawsuit: Accusations of AI Monopoly

Filed in August, the lawsuit by X and xAI alleges that Apple and OpenAI are engaged in an “anticompetitive scheme” designed to maintain monopolies in the AI market. The complaint accuses Apple of giving preferential treatment to OpenAI’s ChatGPT within its App Store ecosystem, sidelining competing services such as Musk’s own Grok chatbot. The case touches on broader concerns that Big Tech firms are consolidating power in the generative AI sector, a development drawing scrutiny from regulators and investors alike.

OpenAI declined to comment on the ruling, while Apple and X did not immediately respond to media inquiries. The case joins a growing list of legal challenges involving Musk’s companies, many of which have attempted to move proceedings to Texas — a jurisdiction seen as more business-friendly.

What Comes Next

The Fort Worth ruling, though procedural, could shape how future antitrust and AI-related lawsuits unfold in the United States. Legal experts note that the case could test the boundaries of federal jurisdiction over emerging technologies and corporate alliances. If Musk’s claims gain traction, the outcome could ripple through the AI ecosystem, influencing how partnerships between platform operators and model developers are structured.

For now, the case will remain in Fort Worth — a decision that may not only impact Apple, OpenAI, and X, but also the broader debate over where and how the next generation of tech power struggles will be fought.