OpenAI Publishes Internal Messages to Rebut Apple Lawsuit

Apple asked a court Monday to block OpenAI from building an AI device based on its technology, and revealed 11 more ex-employees may be tied to the case. OpenAI published internal messages hours later to fight back.

The injunction request widens the case beyond two names

Apple's original lawsuit, filed last month, centers on two former employees who now work at OpenAI: Chang Liu, an ex-iPhone engineer now on OpenAI's technical team, and Tang Tan, who spent 25 years at Apple overseeing iPhone and Apple Watch design before becoming OpenAI's chief hardware officer. Apple alleges the pair took "secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes, and products" to advance OpenAI's hardware plans.

In a new filing, Apple is seeking a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery targeting Liu, Tan, OpenAI and its foundation, and io — the device startup co-founded by former Apple design chief Jony Ive. Apple says its investigation has "so far revealed 11 other former Apple employees beyond Liu and Tan" who may have been witnesses or otherwise involved. One unnamed former Apple employee, the filing states, "took screenshots of confidential Apple documents relating to an unannounced Apple product before an interview at OpenAI."

Apple's specific accusations against Liu

Apple's suit alleges Liu failed to return a company-owned computer and used an authentication vulnerability to access Apple's cloud storage weeks after leaving. It further claims Liu downloaded confidential files and coached a still-employed Apple colleague on how to do the same while "avoiding trouble" with the security team ahead of her own move to OpenAI. The filing also alleges Tan asked for confidential Apple information while interviewing Apple employees for OpenAI roles, and instructed interviewees to bring examples of Apple components they'd worked on.

The new filing adds a second, more specific incident: an unnamed former Apple employee "seems to have met with Mr. Liu and Ms. Peng in advance of Ms. Peng's interview at OpenAI and discussed with them during that meeting Apple proprietary information relating to unannounced products," according to the filing. Yu-Ting Peng, an OpenAI employee named in the original complaint, is referenced again here as part of the same alleged pattern of pre-interview information sharing.

OpenAI's rebuttal, in its own words

OpenAI didn't file a legal response — it published a blog post titled "Apple is getting this wrong," calling the lawsuit "careless, aggressive, and oddly personal" and posting iMessage and email exchanges to contest specific claims. "Apple's request for a preliminary injunction is both based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets," the post reads. "We're much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier."

On the access allegation, OpenAI's post says Apple "accuses Chang Liu of accessing Apple confidential information after leaving the company, but only now admits that Apple employees reached out to him and asked for his help to locate this information." It argues the "residual access" Apple points to reflects Apple's own failure to revoke system access after departures, not misconduct by Liu. On the interview-coaching claim, OpenAI counters that Tan "has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies."

OpenAI also disputes Apple's timeline of outreach, saying Apple has now conceded that its outside lawyers "emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names," and that Apple never actually spoke with OpenAI's general counsel despite claiming otherwise.

Why this is escalating now, not settling

The io detail matters beyond the name-checking: Apple's new filing frames the dispute as an attempt to stop OpenAI from shipping a competing AI hardware product built on knowledge it says Liu and Tan carried out the door. That's a different ask than the original suit, which centered on data theft and non-solicitation. A preliminary injunction targeting a shipping roadmap, not just past conduct, is the kind of request that forces a faster court response than a standard discovery fight — which is likely why OpenAI chose to answer in a blog post within hours rather than wait for its own filing.

Analysis: the public-blog approach is itself a signal. Legal disputes over trade secrets typically stay confined to sealed filings and courtroom exhibits until a ruling forces disclosure. OpenAI's decision to publish its counter-evidence directly, rather than waiting for a formal response deadline, suggests the company sees more to lose from a narrative of "OpenAI poached Apple's hardware team via stolen secrets" sitting unanswered in headlines than from the legal risk of pre-litigating its defense in public. Apple, in turn, gains from keeping the story framed around a specific device roadmap rather than the more diffuse question of who-said-what in a string of internal messages.

What to watch

Two things resolve the next phase of this story: whether the court grants Apple's request for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, and whether Apple's promised follow-up filings name the 11 additional former employees specifically. Either would turn this from a war of press statements into one with concrete legal consequences for OpenAI's hardware plans.