Apple sues OpenAI over alleged poaching and theft of confidential information: submit design files during interviews, leave without returning laptops, and download thousands of pages of documents…

Apple sues in court, accusing OpenAI of systematically stealing hardware trade secrets; on the surface it’s a headhunting lawsuit involving 400 people, but at its core it’s a battle over Apple’s 24-year hardware moat.
(Background: OpenAI is headhunting too aggressively—Apple sues! More than 400 employees got raises, but couldn’t be retained.)
(Extra context: Meta launches an “AI necklace” test, aiming to ship tens of millions of wearable devices in the second half of the year)

Table of contents

Toggle

• From ally to defendant
• Why hardware is non-negotiable
• Legal recruiting vs illegal leaking with confidential data

Two years ago, Apple integrated ChatGPT into the iPhone operating system—this was the peak moment of the “ally” relationship. Two years later, however, Apple sued this ally in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that OpenAI systematically stole Apple’s unpublished hardware business secrets.

On the surface, this is a “headhunting lawsuit.” Apple claims OpenAI poached more than 400 employees, including design executives and engineers. But the real question isn’t how many people were taken—it’s why it couldn’t be done any other way.

OpenAI has money and some of the world’s top models, but it doesn’t have Apple’s hardware supply chain and industrial design know-how that took 24 years to build. Capital can buy talent and compute can boost models, but in the supply chain, the tacit coordination among hundreds of suppliers and the experience of ramping yields often can only be earned over time—not bought with cash.

At its essence, the lawsuit is asking: can entry into the post-smartphone era be bought with money? Put another way, Apple isn’t trying to protect a few hundred names—it’s trying to protect that moat made of hardware that others can neither copy nor bypass.

From ally to defendant

On July 10, Apple filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against OpenAI and its hardware subsidiary io Products, seeking an injunction and damages (the amount was not specified in the complaint). Apple’s complaint is blunt: “From technical staff to hardware leaders, layer after layer is stealing Apple’s trade secrets and confidential information, and doing so in coordination with business partners.”

An Apple spokesperson added that a large body of evidence has recently emerged showing that OpenAI employees improperly obtained Apple’s confidential information regarding unpublished technology, processes, and products, and that Apple will defend the hard work and innovation of its team.

OpenAI’s response was equally brief: “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets; we focus on building innovative technologies that empower the world.” It fully denies the allegations. Apple says it raised concerns directly with OpenAI in February 2026, but received no response; only then did it officially file suit in July—almost half a year later.

Why hardware is non-negotiable

The answer is hidden in Sam Altman’s vision: an AI-native device that replaces smartphones.

In May 2025, OpenAI acquired io, a hardware startup co-founded by Jony Ive and partners, for about $6.5 billion in an all-stock deal, packaging it together with more than 50 engineers; Jony Ive currently leads OpenAI’s hardware design, but was not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

The rumored product roadmap is an “un-screen” AI-native interface. OpenAI once said it would unveil its first device in the second half of 2026. The problem is that models and funding can’t solve industrial design, supply-chain management, and mass-production yield—those are the moats Apple built over 24 years through countless failures, not things that can be copied from a few slide decks or a few rounds of financing.

So Apple alleges that Tang Tan, OpenAI’s current head of hardware, who spent 24 years at Apple and led product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch, left in February 2024 to follow Jony Ive. During recruiting, he asked candidates using Apple’s internal confidential project codename, to probe into products Apple hadn’t published yet. He also required job applicants who were “still employed at Apple” to bring real parts to the interview for demonstrations, and to hand over CAD design files, prototypes, and supplier lists…

Legal recruiting vs illegal leaking with confidential data

We know headhunting itself isn’t illegal—that’s Silicon Valley’s everyday life. What made Apple decide to bring in the courts is the line of “human minds and laptops packed with the former employer’s confidential information”: trade secret law is the true main battlefield of this fight.

Apple alleges that after Chang Liu, a senior systems electrical/mechanical engineer who worked at Apple for 8 years, left in January 2026 to join OpenAI, he used a software vulnerability to obtain unauthorized access to Apple’s network storage space, downloading more than one thousand pages of technical documents. The materials covered circuit board manufacturing files, product presentations, hardware design, and testing processes; he also did not return Apple laptops when he left.

Even more dramatic: Chang Liu messaged Alyssa Peng, a colleague still employed at Apple: “LOL, I found out I can access that network storage space. That’s hilarious.” Peng replied, “I’m ready,” and used her own devices to help obtain more confidential files. Peng later joined OpenAI’s hardware division in April 2026 as well.

Apple’s complaint further notes that this is not a single case, but a pattern. OpenAI previously asked a manufacturing partner trusted by Apple to carry out Apple’s proprietary metal processing procedures for untrue reasons, and used Apple’s internal terminology to pose targeted questions to Apple’s battery and power suppliers—piecing together a complete outline of Apple’s supply chain.

Legal commercial competition vs illegal confidential-data leakage is exactly what this lawsuit is meant to draw the line on.