OpenAI is trying to reshape the public understanding of Apple’s lawsuit by releasing selected communications tied to the dispute. The company’s blog post, titled “Apple is getting this wrong,” argues that Apple’s claims are inaccurate and presents emails and iMessages as evidence.
The case centers on allegations that former Apple employees Chang Liu and Tang Tan brought confidential Apple information to OpenAI. Apple says the information involved “secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes, and products.” OpenAI rejects that framing and says Apple’s approach is “careless, aggressive, and oddly personal.”
What Apple Alleges
The lawsuit filed by Apple last month focuses primarily on Liu and Tan, both of whom later joined OpenAI. Liu was a former iPhone engineer and now works on OpenAI’s technical team. Tan worked at Apple for 25 years, previously overseeing iPhone and Apple Watch design, and later became OpenAI’s chief hardware officer.
Apple alleges that the two former employees took confidential information that could support OpenAI’s hardware plans. According to the source article, Apple also asked for a preliminary injunction on Monday. That request would prevent Liu, Tan, and OpenAI from accessing, acquiring, using, or disclosing alleged confidential information while the lawsuit continues.
OpenAI’s public response does not function as a formal legal filing. Instead, it is a public argument aimed at challenging Apple’s version of events outside the courtroom. The company is using selected communications to raise doubts about the way Apple has described the dispute.
OpenAI’s Public Defense
OpenAI says Apple’s injunction request rests on false claims and is unnecessary. In its blog post, the company wrote: “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.”
OpenAI continued: “We’re much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.” That statement is central to the company’s position. OpenAI is not only denying the trade secret allegations; it is also trying to frame Apple’s case as a distraction from its own product work.
The company’s decision to publish emails and iMessages changes the tone of the dispute. Rather than waiting only for court filings, OpenAI is asking the public to evaluate Apple’s claims against the communications it chose to release. That makes the case not just a legal fight, but also a battle over credibility.
The Chang Liu Dispute
Apple’s lawsuit accuses Liu of several actions after leaving the company. Apple alleges that he failed to return a company-owned computer. It also alleges that he used an authentication vulnerability to access Apple’s cloud-based network storage weeks after his departure.
Apple further claims Liu downloaded confidential files from Apple’s storage system. The lawsuit also accuses him of instructing another Apple colleague on how to download files and “avoid trouble” with Apple’s security team before she joined OpenAI.
OpenAI disputes the implication that Liu improperly sought out Apple’s confidential material. In its blog post, OpenAI says Apple employees contacted Liu and asked for help locating information. OpenAI also says Apple later framed the issue as “residual access.”
“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. 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.“
That argument is important because it shifts the focus from intent to system access. OpenAI is saying the problem was not that Liu wanted Apple files, but that Apple’s own access controls left former employees with access they should not have had.
The Tang Tan Allegations
Apple’s claims also involve Tan’s role in recruiting. The lawsuit alleges that Tan asked for confidential Apple information while interviewing Apple employees for jobs at OpenAI. Apple also alleges that Tan told interviewees to show some of the Apple components they had worked on.
OpenAI denies that Tan sought confidential information. According to OpenAI, Tan “has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies.”
The distinction matters because the lawsuit connects hiring, hardware work, and confidential knowledge. Apple’s view is that OpenAI may have benefited from information tied to unreleased Apple technologies, processes, and products. OpenAI’s view is that it has a policy and expectation against using another company’s confidential information.
Why The Public Messages Matter
OpenAI also challenged Apple’s claim about how it responded to early inquiries. The company says Apple “now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names.” OpenAI also says Apple conceded that it did not have a discussion with OpenAI’s General Counsel.
To support its account, OpenAI published emails between the companies’ legal counsel and iMessages Liu exchanged with an Apple employee. The company is presenting those communications as a way to expose inconsistencies in Apple’s narrative.
The legal case will still move through the court process. But OpenAI’s blog post shows that the company is not limiting its defense to legal documents. It is also trying to influence how readers, employees, partners, and the broader tech industry understand the Apple lawsuit.
For now, the dispute remains sharply divided. Apple alleges former employees took and used confidential information. OpenAI says it has no interest in Apple’s trade secrets and argues that Apple’s case is built on misleading or incomplete claims.