One nearly unbelievable detail in Apple’s federal complaint is that a job applicant allegedly brought real hardware components from Apple’s facilities to an OpenAI interview. According to reports, someone in the room remarked, “I didn’t even know we could take those from the office.” If it is upheld in court, that statement reveals nearly everything about the environment Apple is describing: a hiring process that is so assertive and self-assured that fundamental professional boundaries seem to have become irrelevant.
On July 10, 2026, Apple filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California. OpenAI, its hardware subsidiary io Products, Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, and Chang Liu, a former senior engineer at Apple, are all named in the complaint. The main charge is what Apple refers to as a “pattern of theft”—a concerted attempt to entice hundreds of Apple workers to join OpenAI while urging them to bring private data with them. According to Apple’s own filing, OpenAI now employs over 400 former Apple employees.
The accusations made against Liu are detailed and, to be honest, a little blatant. After leaving, he allegedly kept a company laptop. He then used an authentication vulnerability to log back into Apple’s internal network and download dozens of private hardware files, including technical specifications for unreleased products. In the process, he allegedly left disparaging messages for Apple. Tan, on the other hand, is alleged to have emailed himself sensitive documents and internal supplier reports prior to his departure, and to have later advised Apple candidates to bring tangible parts to OpenAI interviews.
OpenAI’s response has been firm but measured. According to a representative, the company has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets” and is unaware of any proof that the complaint is valid. Although that denial is expected, it’s important to note that the business hasn’t yet publicly addressed the particular allegations made against Tan and Liu. If this case proceeds that far, the true story will be revealed during discovery.
It’s difficult to ignore those who aren’t mentioned in the complaint. The renowned former design chief of Apple, Jony Ive, departed to co-found io, which OpenAI purchased in an all-equity deal for about $6.4 to $6.5 billion. His absence from the lawsuit is noticeable. Apple’s decision to exclude him may indicate that they don’t have concrete proof linking him to the purported recruitment scheme, or it may be a calculated move to avoid the publicity of suing the iPhone’s creator. Maybe both. Attorneys on both sides are undoubtedly considering the gap in the filing.
The timing is not coincidental. According to numerous reports, OpenAI is thinking about going public in late 2026 or early 2027. An IPO is not automatically prevented by a trade secrets case of this magnitude, but it does compel the company to reveal the litigation in any prospectus and provide awkward answers regarding whether its hardware roadmap relies on information it may not have been authorized to use. For bankers and investors who were already attempting to determine a valuation for a business that isn’t yet profitable, that presents a significant challenge.
The hardware goals of OpenAI are truly important. According to reports, the company is developing a smart speaker with AI voice interaction that will launch sometime in 2027 and directly compete with Apple’s HomePod, Google’s Nest, and Amazon’s Echo. Apple’s legal theory revolves around that product, claiming that OpenAI used stolen hardware knowledge to create something it couldn’t have produced as quickly on its own. Apple is requesting an injunction that, if granted, might limit OpenAI’s use of particular designs or manufacturing processes, such as a proprietary metal-finishing technique that Apple views as a trade secret, according to the complaint.
It’s genuinely unclear at this point whether Apple prevails on the merits. According to California law, employee mobility is insufficient to prove trade secret theft. Apple must demonstrate that certain protected data crossed the line and that OpenAI profited from it. Even with 400 former workers as circumstantial evidence, that is a more difficult argument to make.
However, it appears that Apple is not taking this lightly. Since then, the company has sent preservation letters to about forty more former workers who are currently employed at OpenAI, requesting that they preserve pertinent documents and make themselves available to Apple’s legal team. That kind of growth indicates that Apple is still developing rather than concluding its case. The collaboration between these two businesses, which once promised a new era of ChatGPT integration inside Apple devices, is now firmly in the past, regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings.
