OpenAI Hits Back at Apple Over Legal Mix-up, Blaming Outsourced Lawyer for Misdirected Email

The high-stakes trade secret lawsuit between Apple and OpenAI escalated sharply on August 4. Following Apple’s filing of an initial injunction and a motion for accelerated discovery in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, OpenAI issued a direct rebuttal titled “Apple Got It Wrong.” The response included screenshots of internal emails and iMessage transcripts, alleging that Apple’s injunction was grounded in misleading statements and managerial errors.

The legal battle originated on July 10, when Apple sued former senior systems electrical engineer Chang Liu and former vice president of product design Tang Tan—now OpenAI’s Chief Hardware Officer. Apple alleged that both individuals systematically stole core design blueprints, supply chain data, and manufacturing processes for devices like the iPhone and Apple Watch during their transition to OpenAI and its hardware subsidiary, io Products. Apple subsequently sought an initial injunction to prevent OpenAI and the former employees from accessing or utilizing confidential Apple information, while also demanding sworn testimony. The company argued that without such an injunction, it would suffer irreparable and significant harm.

OpenAI’s response dismantled two of Apple’s primary accusations. First, regarding Apple’s claim that “they contacted OpenAI but received no response,” OpenAI revealed that Apple’s external counsel had confused the surnames of two Asian employees, sending emails to incorrect recipients. After OpenAI proactively corrected this error, Apple’s legal team admitted they had indeed sent the messages to the wrong people. Second, concerning Apple’s allegation that Chang Liu continued logging into the internal network after his departure to download engineering files, OpenAI’s disclosed iMessage conversations showed that after Liu left in January 2026, it was an Apple employee who approached him, requesting assistance in locating and providing previous project documents.

Adding to Apple’s predicament, the access rights remained on Apple’s end. OpenAI noted that Chang Liu retained access to certain files after his departure due to poor internal system management at Apple—specifically, that when employees left, iCloud sharing permissions were not promptly revoked. This administrative oversight ironically became the basis for accusing former employees of “unauthorized access.”

In its response, OpenAI did not mince words: while acknowledging Apple as a great company that excels in attention to detail, OpenAI argued that this lawsuit—marked by carelessness, aggression, and personal animosity—does not align with its reputation. The company stated it neither possesses nor desires any of Apple’s trade secrets. Following its recent victory against Musk, this confrontation with Apple has emerged as a new focal point in Silicon Valley. At its core, the dispute represents a struggle for influence over the next generation of native AI hardware ecosystems. As large model inference efficiency and edge-side Agent capabilities advance, next-generation AI devices are poised to reshape traditional smartphone and app operating system paradigms. Apple is rushing to fortify its confidentiality defenses to protect decades of consumer electronics supply chain advantages, while OpenAI seeks to demonstrate the independence and compliance of its hardware division. As of this writing, the Northern District Court of California has not yet ruled on the injunction application, and Apple has not issued a public response.