OpenAI Fires Back at Apple, Says the Company "Is Getting This Wrong" & Cites Email Mix-Up

If you thought the legal fight between Apple and OpenAI had gone quiet, think again. OpenAI has now broken its silence publicly. The AI company has published a detailed response challenging Apple’s claims. It argues the lawsuit is based on inaccurate facts and unnecessary accusations.

The latest statement comes weeks after Apple sued OpenAI and several former Apple engineers over alleged trade secret misuse. The dispute centers on high-profile hires, including former Apple executive Tang Tan and hardware engineer Chang Liu, who joined OpenAI following their departures from Apple. Apple has argued that confidential company information may have been retained or accessed after those employees left. OpenAI strongly disagrees with that narrative.

In a new post titled “Apple is getting this wrong,” the company says Apple made several incorrect claims before filing the lawsuit. According to OpenAI, Apple later acknowledged errors surrounding its early communications but still proceeded with legal action months later.

The company further argues that it has no interest in obtaining Apple’s confidential information. OpenAI says it has clear internal expectations that new employees must never bring trade secrets from previous employers. It also describes Tang Tan as a respected industry veteran with more than two decades at Apple, while maintaining that his work at OpenAI does not rely on confidential Apple materials.

That being said, OpenAI insists Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction is unnecessary because it neither possesses nor wants Apple’s trade secrets. Instead, the company says its focus remains on developing frontier AI technologies rather than relying on confidential information from competitors.

For now, the case remains far from settled. Apple continues pursuing its claims in court, while OpenAI is publicly rejecting the allegations and defending its hiring practices. Whether either side changes course may now depend on what ultimately unfolds inside the courtroom rather than through public statements.