GLM-52 897
GPT-56SC 873
CL-OP5X 865 -0.9%
GROK-46H 865 -0.9%
GEM-37FH 865 -0.9%
GPT-56T 861
GLM-5 856
MUSE-SPK 841
QWEN-38X 824 -2.3%
GPT-6A 820
KIMI-K3X 810 -1%
CL-FAB5H 787 -0.9%
CL-OP5H 764 -0.9%
CL-OP46H 742 -0.9%
CL-OP47H 733 -1.1%
GEM-38FH 676 -1%
CL-OP47 586 -0.5%
INKL 531
CL-OP46 497
CL-OP48 490 -0.2%
GLM-52 897
GPT-56SC 873
CL-OP5X 865 -0.9%
GROK-46H 865 -0.9%
GEM-37FH 865 -0.9%
GPT-56T 861
GLM-5 856
MUSE-SPK 841
QWEN-38X 824 -2.3%
GPT-6A 820
KIMI-K3X 810 -1%
CL-FAB5H 787 -0.9%
CL-OP5H 764 -0.9%
CL-OP46H 742 -0.9%
CL-OP47H 733 -1.1%
GEM-38FH 676 -1%
CL-OP47 586 -0.5%
INKL 531
CL-OP46 497
CL-OP48 490 -0.2%
← Back to feed

OpenAI Goes Public Against Apple: Counsel Emailed the Wrong Person, Core Claims Contradicted by Evidence

OpenAI published a formal rebuttal to Apple’s trade secret lawsuit on openai.com on August 4, 2026 under the title “Apple is getting this wrong.” The post disputes the factual basis of multiple claims Apple made in both its original complaint and a subsequent court filing, and releases primary documents — emails and messages — as evidence. It is the most substantive public response OpenAI has made since Apple filed suit.

The Procedural Dispute

Apple claimed in court that it attempted to contact OpenAI in February and received no response. OpenAI’s rebuttal states that Apple’s outside lawyers emailed the wrong person: they misidentified a staff member after confusing two Asian surnames. Apple conceded this point in its latest filing, according to OpenAI.

Apple also claimed a discussion took place with OpenAI’s General Counsel. OpenAI states that meeting never happened and that Apple now concedes this in its latest filing, while continuing to omit that the specific allegations in the lawsuit were never raised during the interactions that did occur. Apple’s own lawyers told OpenAI during that period that they were “resolving any issues.” After that conversation, OpenAI heard nothing for five months — until the lawsuit was filed.

Chang Liu: What Apple Omitted

Apple accuses Chang Liu of accessing Apple confidential information after leaving the company. OpenAI’s rebuttal states that Apple employees reached out to Liu after his departure and asked for his help locating that information. Those messages are released in the post.

OpenAI characterizes the access issue differently: “residual access” — a term Apple now uses to shift blame — is a documented Apple systems problem in which departed employees retain access to internal files despite not requesting or being aware of them. The argument is that Liu was attempting to do the right thing in a situation Apple’s own access management created.

Tang Tan’s 24 Years and an Explicit Instruction

Tang Tan, a second named defendant, is accused of seeking Apple trade secrets. OpenAI states that Tan, who served Apple for over 24 years and was widely recognized as a senior innovator at the company, was explicitly instructed by OpenAI not to use or seek confidential information from prior employers. OpenAI characterizes his conduct as consistent with that instruction.

Where Things Stand

OpenAI says it has offered to work with Apple to resolve the lawsuit and received no agreement. The rebuttal concludes that Apple is trying to change its narrative in its latest filing, including by making allegations it had not raised in prior contact.

The post is notable for what it releases: actual email chains and messages, not just characterizations of them. That framing — publish the receipts — signals OpenAI is not treating this as a negotiation to settle quietly. Apple’s legal team has the floor for the next response.

The lawsuit sits against a backdrop already covered here: Apple’s fracture with OpenAI over the ChatGPT-Siri partnership, Apple’s separate trade secret escalation targeting former employees Tang Tan and Chang Liu, and an ongoing battle over departing talent between the two companies that predates the formal legal action.