Apple's three factual errors
Apple was once one of the greatest companies in history, renowned for its meticulous attention to detail. But this careless, aggressive, and unusually personal lawsuit falls far short of that reputation.
Apple claimed they contacted OpenAI in February but received no response. In reality, their external law firm confused two Asian surnames and sent the email to the wrong person—something they only admitted after we pointed it out. Apple also claimed they spoke with our General Counsel, but now they acknowledge this never happened. What they continue to conceal is that they never mentioned the specific allegations in the lawsuit; instead, they told us they were “resolving all issues.” Then we heard nothing for five months until they filed suit. In their latest filings, Apple is desperately trying to spin this sequence of events, but you can read the emails for yourself.
Apple accused Chang Liu of obtaining confidential Apple information after leaving the company, but is now admitting that Apple employees proactively reached out to him to help locate this information (you can view the chat logs here). Apple is now attempting to shift blame onto “residual access permissions,” yet they have not disclosed that this is a widespread issue at Apple—due to their failure to properly manage system permissions when employees leave. In reality, former employees who intended to do the right thing upon departure still retained access to Apple files—even though they did not want these permissions and were often unaware they still had them.
Apple also accused Tang Tan of attempting to obtain and use their trade secrets. However, Tang has consistently and clearly communicated to the team that we do not want and must never use any confidential information from other companies. Tang served Apple for over 24 years and is widely recognized as one of the company’s most innovative leaders.
We hoped Apple would speak with us before filing suit—we would have been happy to clarify everything with them. We took the allegations in the lawsuit seriously and proactively offered to work with Apple to resolve the matter. However, they chose to alter the narrative, including vague accusations against other former employees, and are likely to continue using this approach.
Apple’s requested preliminary injunction is based on false information and is entirely unnecessary, as we neither possess nor seek any of their trade secrets. We are more focused on building innovative products and pushing the boundaries of technology.
Chart: iMessage chat log between Chang Liu (blue bubble) and Apple employees
Chang's last day of work is January 22, 2026. After his departure, former colleagues asked him to help locate files and information to assist with their Apple-related work (all times are UTC).
Note: Other personal names and Apple confidential information have been redacted.
Source: OpenAI
Original email correspondence
The following email exchange occurred between Apple’s outside counsel Gabriel Gross, OpenAI’s General Counsel Che Chang, and Apple’s in-house legal team. The emails show that Gross mistakenly sent an email to Che and inaccurately claimed that the two had spoken by phone. Both Gross and Apple’s in-house legal team subsequently confirmed this was an error, and Gross stated they were “working to resolve all issues.” The specific allegations in Apple’s lawsuit were never mentioned, and there was no further follow-up before the lawsuit was filed five months later.
Figure: Due to the length of the conversation screenshots listed in the original text, this figure shows a selected portion.
Author: OpenAI; Translated by Shenchao TechFlow