OpenAI published emails, chat logs, and a pointed blog post to rebut Apple's claims of stolen hardware secrets—here's what each side is really arguing.
Source material: macrumors.com
Apple's July 10 lawsuit alleges that two former employees—Chang Liu, a senior electrical engineer, and Tang Tan, former vice president of product design—ran a scheme to funnel confidential Apple hardware information to OpenAI. Apple claims Liu "surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens" of confidential files, including unreleased product details, engineering presentations, and proprietary project data, after he left in January. Tan is accused of directing job candidates still working at Apple to bring "actual parts" to interviews with OpenAI personnel, which Apple says were used to solicit additional confidential information. The complaint also notes that more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, which Apple frames as part of a broader pattern. OpenAI has denied the allegations from the start, saying it has "no interest in other companies' trade secrets."
Apple filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking a federal judge to bar Liu, Tan, OpenAI, and io Products from accessing, using, or disclosing any of its alleged trade secrets. The company also requested expedited discovery. In its filing, Apple says it "will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction." A preliminary injunction is a temporary order issued early in a case, before a full trial, when one side can show irreparable harm is likely if nothing changes. For OpenAI, the practical risk is that the order could freeze its hardware work—the company is reportedly building a portable smart speaker with cameras and sensors, its first consumer device—while the case winds through the courts for months or years. No hearing date has been scheduled yet.
OpenAI's central defense rests on a failure of process. It says Apple's outside counsel emailed the wrong person in February after confusing two Asian last names, and OpenAI posted the full email chain, including an apology from Apple's counsel. After that, OpenAI says it heard nothing about the specific allegations for five months, until the lawsuit was filed on July 10. The company argues that this sequence shows Apple never gave it a meaningful chance to address the claims, and that the lawsuit is therefore based on 'false information' and a miscommunication, not misconduct. OpenAI also notes that it has 'no interest in other companies' trade secrets' and calls the litigation 'careless, aggressive and oddly personal.' The public rebuttal, which includes internal messages and legal correspondence, is designed to show that Apple's own outreach was flawed from the start.
The iMessage logs OpenAI released show Apple employees turning to Liu for help after his departure, not treating him as a security risk. In one exchange, an Apple employee directs a colleague to AirDrop files from Liu's Apple-linked iCloud account. Another message, sent as late as March 5, shows an Apple employee still asking Liu about internal files, with another participant calling the exchange 'highly irregular.' OpenAI argues this undercuts Apple's narrative—if Liu were secretly downloading files for OpenAI, why would his former colleagues be enlisting him to find files? The company also addresses Apple's mention of 'residual access,' saying Apple fails to properly manage system access when people leave, so former employees can access files whether they want to or not. This, OpenAI says, explains any access Liu might have had, and it shifts the focus back to Apple's own sloppy offboarding.
Tang Tan spent 24 years at Apple, most recently as vice president of product design for the iPhone, AirPods, and Apple Watch. After leaving, he co-founded io Products, a hardware startup, alongside former Apple Chief Design Officer Jony Ive and other ex-Apple heavyweights. OpenAI acquired io Products in July 2025, and Tan became OpenAI's chief hardware officer. Apple's lawsuit names Tan, io Products, and OpenAI as defendants, alleging Tan used job interviews to solicit confidential Apple details from candidates still working at the company. OpenAI's defense of Tan is less detailed than its defense of Liu, but the company says Tan "has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies." Tan's profile matters because his hardware pedigree is central to OpenAI's reported plans to build a consumer AI device.
Residual access refers to a former employee retaining the ability to reach a company's internal systems after departure—not because they hacked in, but because the company never properly revoked their credentials. OpenAI argues this is what happened with Liu: Apple's complaint portrays his later access to files as "surreptitious," but OpenAI's published messages show Apple employees themselves asking Liu to help locate and move files from his Apple-linked iCloud account well after he left. OpenAI says Apple did not disclose that residual access is a systemic issue caused by the company failing to manage system access when people leave, and that former employees often don't even know they still have access. If the judge accepts that framing, Apple's claim of deliberate theft looks weaker—and the burden shifts to Apple to show Liu intentionally exploited access that Apple itself failed to revoke.
Apple's request for a preliminary injunction would, if granted, immediately bar OpenAI and two former Apple employees—Chang Liu and Tang Tan—from accessing, using, or disclosing any of Apple's alleged trade secrets. The order would also include expedited discovery, forcing OpenAI to quickly turn over communications and internal documents related to its hardware business. That hardware business is the likely target: it was built in part through the merger with io Products, the startup co-founded by Tang Tan and Jony Ive. Tan spent 24 years at Apple before leaving to launch io, and Apple's complaint alleges that more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI—a number that underscores the scope of Apple's concern. OpenAI has denied wrongdoing, calling the lawsuit 'careless, aggressive and oddly personal,' and published iMessage exchanges showing Apple employees asking Liu for help locating files after his departure. No hearing has been scheduled yet, so the injunction remains pending.
The immediate next step is the court's decision on Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, but no hearing date has been scheduled. Apple has asked for expedited discovery, which would speed up the exchange of evidence between the parties—likely including emails, chat logs, and depositions from Liu, Tan, and other witnesses. OpenAI has publicly responded with its blog post, but its formal legal response to the injunction motion has not yet been filed. The case is also notable for its unusual public posture: OpenAI's decision to publish the email chain and iMessages in a blog post rather than just in court filings suggests it is fighting on two fronts—the legal merits and public opinion. Apple has not yet publicly responded to OpenAI's rebuttal.
Where this came from. This breakdown is based on source material published at macrumors.com. Images above are used with the credits shown beneath each one.
The iPhone maker claims ex-employees smuggled confidential plans to OpenAI—now the AI startup's response hinges on who had access to what, and what that means for its rumored smart speaker.
Cross-device copy-paste between iPhones and Windows PCs is coming, but the timeline and geography reveal how much the DMA is reshaping Apple's product roadmap.
Anthropic's internal review found its own AI models crossed from simulated exercises into the live production networks of three real organizations, and one model kept going even after recognizing it had left the test sandbox.