Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft 23%

By Sarah Perez37%

7/10/2026, 9:00:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 217 hits. Analysis detected 1,671 faulty-reasoning hits from 997 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.2% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,403 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.50% of the article peer group.

Apple filed a lawsuit Friday against OpenAI over allegations of trade secret theft and breach of contract. 
The iPhone maker alleges that this misconduct, which it says reveals a pattern of theft from OpenAI employees who previously worked at Apple, was directed by OpenAI’s senior leadership, including Chief Hardware Officer Tang Tan . 
The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Tan of using Apple’s confidential project code names during OpenAI’s recruiting process, asking job candidates to bring in Apple hardware components to their interviews, coaching departing Apple employees on how to evade the company’s security procedures, and asking for details about the company’s unannounced products. 
Before joining OpenAI, Tan had spent 24 years at Apple, most recently as VP of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch. 
The accusations come at a time when OpenAI is rumored to be developing its first hardware product , which would likely compete with the iPhone. 
In April, industry analyst Ming-Chi Kuo suggested this device could be a smartphone that would rely on AI agents instead of apps. 
If true, it would be one of the largest threats to Apple’s core hardware business to date. 
Apple’s former lead designer Jony Ive’s device startup io was acquired by OpenAI last year in a $6.5 billion deal to aid the AI company with its hardware ambitions. 
While io was named in the filing, Ive was not. 
Tan is not the only OpenAI employee referenced in the new complaint. 
Apple also alleges that Chang Liu, who spent eight years at Apple as a senior systems electrical engineer, failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after leaving the company for OpenAI in 2026 and had used the computer to download confidential Apple technical documents. 
Apple says in the complaint that the stolen documents included information about unannounced technologies, features, and products, including technical specifications, engineering presentations, and proprietary project data. 
Liu is also accused in the lawsuit of sharing Apple’s confidential information with other Apple employees applying for jobs at OpenAI, advising at least one of them on what to study before their interview. 
Apple sent a letter to OpenAI in February to raise its concerns and received no response, the company said in the complaint. 
It alleges that the behavior of these former employees is part of OpenAI’s strategy to extract Apple’s confidential information, which included asking Apple employees to bring designs and prototypes to their interviews, and answer questions about things like component and vendor selection processes. 
Apple says its ongoing investigation revealed that OpenAI and its partners have even used Apple’s confidential information while the AI model maker develops its own hardware product. 
For instance, the filing references a proprietary metal finishing technique that OpenAI used after it allegedly misled a partner into believing it had Apple’s permission to do so. 
Like many tech companies, Apple typically investigates potential trade secret theft or other improper activity by analyzing communications that took place on company-owned devices and reading through its server logs. 
By taking the case to court, Apple will have an opportunity to learn more about the extent of the alleged operation through the legal discovery process. 
Apple is asking the court to bar OpenAI from using or disclosing its trade secrets, require the company to return any confidential Apple materials, and preserve evidence related to the case. 
“This is the tip of the iceberg. 
Apple lacks visibility into what’s been happening behind closed doors at OpenAI, where such misconduct is normalized and exemplified by leadership,” the filing states. 
“As a natural result, OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets.” 
In a prepared statement, Apple also said the following: 
At Apple, our teams are constantly developing breakthrough technologies to create the best products and services in the world, and protecting their work and intellectual property is something we take very seriously. 
Recently, significant evidence has emerged suggesting individuals employed by OpenAI wrongfully took Apple’s secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes, and products. 
We will always defend our teams’ hard work and innovations, and we are taking all appropriate steps to do so. 
OpenAI was asked for comment. 
The company responded after publication, pointing to its public statement shared on X , which reads: “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets. 
We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” 
The filing is available here , or you can read it below. 
This story is developing and will be updated. 
It was originally published at 1:32 p.m. 
PT. 
AI , Apple , Apps , OpenAI , trade secret theft 
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission . 
This doesn’t affect our editorial independence. 
Consumer News Editor 
Sarah has worked as a reporter for TechCrunch since August 2011. 
She joined the company after having previously spent over three years at ReadWriteWeb. 
Prior to her work as a reporter, Sarah worked in I.T. across a number of industries, including banking, retail and software. 
You can contact or verify outreach from Sarah by emailing sarahp@techcrunch.com or via encrypted message at sarahperez.01 on Signal. 
Last chance to save up to $190 on TechCrunch Founder Summit. 
Join 1,000+ founders and VCs at all stages for real-world scaling insights and connections that move the needle. 
Savings end June 26, 11:59 p.m. 
PT . 
Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft 
Elon Musk praises Mythos/Fable, promises not to ‘cut off’ Anthropic 
Instagram users: Here’s how to stop Meta’s AI from using your photos 
Feds demand autonomous vehicle companies stop interfering with first responders 
Meta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photos 
Figma acquires team behind a vibe-coding app 
Reddit is using LLMs to solve a problem LLMs largely created 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Sarah Perez: 5.2%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 2.2%Sarah Perez: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias2.2%This article: 5.3%Sarah Perez: 2.8%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 13.8%Sarah Perez: 1.7%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic13.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 4.5%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 4.7%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Sarah Perez: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 3.2%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Sarah Perez: 2.1%TechCrunch: 5.0%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 6.0%Sarah Perez: 2.5%TechCrunch: 1.2%Pessimism Bias6.0%This article: 15.1%Sarah Perez: 5.6%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 7.7%Sarah Perez: 1.1%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias7.7%This article: 3.4%Sarah Perez: 2.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Sarah Perez: 1.3%TechCrunch: 3.3%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Sarah Perez: 1.4%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.6%Sarah Perez: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.6%Sarah Perez: 3.6%TechCrunch: 4.3%Appeal to Authority4.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.8%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 2.7%Sarah Perez: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.6%Slippery Slope2.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Sarah Perez: 9.3%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.8%Sarah Perez: 0.4%TechCrunch: 1.2%Bandwagon1.8%This article: 6.1%Sarah Perez: 3.1%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 2.4%Sarah Perez: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 9.1%Sarah Perez: 3.7%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 2.5%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.5%This article: 21.8%Sarah Perez: 2.4%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof21.8%This article: 3.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.1%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.5%Sarah Perez: 1.8%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote2.5%This article: 3.4%Sarah Perez: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 8.7%Sarah Perez: 8.9%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.0%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Sarah Perez: 2.3%TechCrunch: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

997 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers43%attributed speech567writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMing-Chi Kuo • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 43 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 22 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 43 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 31 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 7 words • 100.0% coverageApple • 24 words • 100.0% coverageApple • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 32 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 24 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 25 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

OpenAI

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words8.4% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+69.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%OpenAI: 69.4%69.4%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%OpenAI: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.