Apple is getting this wrong

Research Products Business Developers Company Foundation (opens in a new window) Log in Try ChatGPT (opens in a new window) Research Products Business Developers Company Foundation (opens in a new window) Try ChatGPT (opens in a new window) Login OpenAI August 3, 2026

Loading… Share Apple is one of the greatest companies of all time, and built a reputation for obsessing over the smallest details. This careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit sadly doesn’t live up to that reputation.

Apple had claimed that they contacted OpenAI in February and that we didn’t respond. They now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names—only after we brought this to their attention. Apple also claimed they had a discussion with our General Counsel, which they now concede never happened. But they again hide the fact that they never raised the specific allegations in this lawsuit at that time, and that they in fact told us that they were “resolving any issues”. We then heard nothing for five months until they sued. In their latest filing, Apple tries hard to spin this sequence of events, but you can just read the emails for yourself here ⁠ .

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 (you can read the messages here ⁠ ). Apple now tries to shift the blame to “residual access”, but they also don’t disclose that this is a common issue with Apple which is caused by them failing to properly manage system access when people leave. What that means in practice is that former employees who are trying to do the right thing when they leave still have access to Apple files—despite not wanting them or even being aware of them.

Apple also accuses Tang Tan of trying to get and use their trade secrets. However, Tang has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies. Tang served Apple for more than 24 years and was widely known as one of the most innovative leaders at the company.

We wish Apple had raised these issues with us before they filed their lawsuit and would have been happy to clarify all of this with them. We have taken the allegations in the lawsuit seriously and offered to work with Apple to resolve this. Instead, they’re trying to change their narrative, including by making vague accusations about other former employees, and will likely keep repeating this tactic.

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. We’re much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.

August 6, 2026 update : You can read our Motion to Dismiss here ⁠ (opens in a new window) .

iMessages between Chang Liu (in blue) and Apple employees, where Chang—whose last day with Apple was January 22, 2026—is being asked by his former colleagues to help them locate files and information to assist them with their Apple work (all times UTC). Note: other individual names and Apple confidential information have been redacted.

The following emails are between Apple’s outside counsel, Gabriel Gross; OpenAI’s General Counsel Che Chang; and Apple’s in-house legal counsel. They show that Gross emailed Che by mistake and inaccurately claimed the two had spoken. Both Gross and Apple’s in-house legal counsel subsequently confirmed that this was an error, with Gross noting they were “resolving any issues.” The specific claims in Apple’s lawsuit were never raised, and there was no further follow up prior to the lawsuit being filed five months later.

Please see the attached letter and let me know when you are free to discuss it.

Gabriel Gross Partner Weil, Gotshal Manges LLP redacted redacted redacted Direct redacted Mobile

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, redacted and destroy the original message. Thank you.

Thank you for your phone call just now and for offering your cooperation so quickly. I will be back in touch after speaking with Apple. I realize I neglected to include the three attachments when I sent you my letter, so I am re-sending it with the attachments for your records.

Hi [Apple in-house legal counsel] and [Apple in-house legal counsel],

This guy from Weil claims to be representing you. For some reason, he is lying about speaking with me on the phone. I don't know who he is and we have never spoken.

I don't know what the point of his lie is, but could you please confirm if he is actually representing you, and if so, whether you have other counsel you can use. I don’t think interacting through him is appropriate given this behavior.

If this isn’t the right Apple team, could you let me know who might be? Thank you.

I write to follow up on my email and letter from yesterday. After I emailed you around 5:53 p.m. yesterday, I inadvertently also sent you another email around 6:07 p.m. that was intended for redacted Wang, one of the former Apple employees at issue. After we had emailed Mr. Wang yesterday about retaining Apple information, he promptly called me and offered to cooperate with Apple in resolving any issues. I then intended to email him again, but accidentally replied to my email chain with you instead. I apologize for the confusion that likely caused.

Gabriel Gross Partner Weil, Gotshal Manges LLP redacted redacted redacted Direct redacted Mobile

Wanted to make sure to get back to you. Weil is our counsel on this matter, and I believe they should have contacted you explaining the miscommunication. Please feel free to direct any additional questions their way.

[Apple in-house legal counsel]

Engineering Aug 3, 2026