OpenAI published a detailed public rebuttal to Apple’s trade secret lawsuit overnight, calling Apple’s legal approach “careless, aggressive, and oddly personal” and using it to turn several of Apple’s core claims back on the company itself. The post, titled “Apple is getting this wrong,” appears on OpenAI’s blog nearly a month after Apple filed suit on July 10, accusing OpenAI of running a months-long scheme to steal hardware-related intellectual property.
The most pointed section concerns how Apple communicated its concerns before filing. OpenAI states that Apple’s outside lawyers, after confusing two Asian last names, emailed Che Chang instead of the intended recipient, with a subject line referencing “Former Apple employees at OpenAI retaining non-public, confidential, and proprietary information.” Apple had claimed it discussed the matter with OpenAI’s General Counsel ahead of the lawsuit, a claim OpenAI says Apple has now conceded never happened.
The “residual access” defense
On the question of Chang Liu, who worked at Apple for eight years as a senior system electrical engineer before joining OpenAI in January 2026, OpenAI’s response takes an unexpected angle. Rather than denying that Liu had access to Apple files, OpenAI argues that Apple employees themselves contacted Liu asking for his help locating information, and that Liu’s access existed because Apple fails to properly revoke system permissions when employees leave. OpenAI frames this as a widespread Apple infrastructure problem, not evidence of deliberate theft, noting that Apple does not disclose that “residual access” is a common issue caused by the company’s own access-management failures.
If that framing holds up, it significantly complicates Apple’s argument that access to confidential files constitutes a deliberate scheme. Apple’s complaint had characterized OpenAI’s hardware business as “rotten to its core,” language that implies intent rather than administrative oversight.
OpenAI’s defense of Tang Tan
OpenAI’s response is protective of Tang Tan, who served as VP of product design at Apple, leading iPhone and Apple Watch product design for more than 24 years before leaving in February 2024. OpenAI states Tan has consistently told his team that the company does not want to use confidential information from other companies, and describes him as “widely known as one of the most new leaders” at Apple. That characterization carries implicit weight as it asks why Apple would treat a 24-year design veteran, someone central to the iPhone’s physical history, as a bad actor.
OpenAI’s hardware efforts are being led by Jony Ive, Apple’s former chief design officer, after OpenAI acquired his startup io in a $6.5 billion deal. More than 400 former Apple employees reportedly now work at OpenAI, which gives Apple’s lawsuit a scope that goes well beyond two named individuals.
Despite Apple’s legal pressure, including letters sent to more than 40 former Apple employees, OpenAI says it still expects to announce its first hardware product this year and ship it in 2027. The blog post closes with a direct denial of Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction, stating it is “based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets,” and that OpenAI is “much more interested in building new products and technologies that push the frontier.”
OpenAI’s rebuttal is sharp and specific enough to suggest it was written with litigation strategy in mind, not just public relations. Whether the “residual access” and email-confusion arguments survive legal scrutiny is another matter, but they give OpenAI something concrete to argue in court while also making Apple’s pre-suit conduct look sloppy.
On the other hand, OpenAI’s response can also be framed as corporate gaslighting that attempts to dismiss severe allegations as procedural missteps. While OpenAI attributes the legal dispute to Apple’s administrative blunders, such as misidentifying personnel, sending emails to incorrect counsel, and failing to maintain strict system access controls, the core allegations paint a far more deliberate picture. The lawsuit contends that OpenAI systematically recruited over 400 Apple employees, encouraging departing engineers to bring confidential hardware documents, physical prototypes, and supplier lists to interviews while leveraging senior hires to help recruits bypass security protocols.
By dismissing employee messages that celebrate unauthorized network access as mere security failures on Apple’s part, OpenAI is attempting to reframe potential trade-secret theft as an unlocked digital door, deflecting from the substantial intellectual property and talent acquired in its push toward consumer hardware.
1 comment