OpenAI Disputes Apple's Trade-Secret Allegations, Releasing Internal Communications

OpenAI Releases Communications Disputing Apple Lawsuit Claims

OpenAI published a detailed rebuttal on August 3 to Apple’s trade-secret lawsuit, releasing partial iMessage transcripts and arguing that Apple mischaracterized the timeline of contact, conflated normal system-access lapses with intentional misappropriation, and failed to disclose that Apple employees solicited help from departed staffers. According to the OpenAI Blog, the company contends Apple’s allegations rest on factual errors and incomplete disclosures by Apple’s legal team.

Apple’s Alleged Communication Missteps

According to the OpenAI Blog, Apple claimed it contacted OpenAI in February 2026 but received no response. OpenAI now asserts that Apple’s outside counsel emailed the wrong person—a mistake Apple has since conceded resulted from confusion over two similar Asian surnames—and that the company never raised the specific allegations now contained in the lawsuit at that time. OpenAI states that Apple told the company in February it was “resolving any issues,” then remained silent for five months before filing suit.

The Chang Liu Access Question

The iMessages released by OpenAI show Apple employees requesting that Chang Liu—who departed on January 22, 2026—help them locate files and information to assist with Apple work. According to the OpenAI Blog, Apple now acknowledges that its own employees reached out to Liu, yet frames the subsequent access as unauthorized. OpenAI argues that Apple is attempting to shift blame to “residual access,” a problem the company attributes to Apple’s failure to properly manage system permissions when employees depart. This residual access leaves former staff with unintended file visibility despite no effort to retain it, OpenAI contends.

Tang Tan’s Two-Decade Tenure

Tang Tan, who served Apple for over 24 years and was widely recognized as an innovative leader at the company, is also named in Apple’s lawsuit. According to the OpenAI Blog, Tang has consistently instructed the team not to use or seek confidential information from other companies. OpenAI frames this as evidence of compliance intent rather than misappropriation.

Why This Matters

The dispute touches on two practical governance questions that will shape how technology companies manage departing employees and litigation strategy. First, access-control liability: if Apple employees can inadvertently retain file access after departure, does Apple or the employee bear responsibility for subsequent access? OpenAI’s framing suggests that companies cannot simultaneously claim tight security practices while losing track of permissions at scale—a problem that will affect how other tech firms defend against similar allegations. Second, pre-litigation disclosure: Apple’s delay of five months between its February overture and August filing raises questions about whether incomplete initial contact and vague resolution language reset the statute of limitations on disclosure obligations. If Apple’s legal team erred in identifying the contact person and misrepresented prior conversations, courts will assess whether Apple had sufficient opportunity to clarify facts before escalating to suit. The iMessage transcripts, if authenticated, may shift public and judicial perception of who initiated access—a reversal that could influence both discovery scope and settlement leverage in the broader case.