9to5Mac58%

Apple sues OpenAI 13%

By Chance Miller25%

7/10/2026, 1:29:43 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.3% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,094 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.8% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,062 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.10% of the article peer group.

Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets 
Chance Miller | Jul 10 2026 - 1:29 pm PT 
Apple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI today, accusing the company of trade secret theft. 
Specifically, Apple alleges that its former employees have stolen trade secrets “for the benefit of OpenAI.” 
“This case is about Apple’s former employees stealing Apple’s trade secrets for the benefit of OpenAI. 
Apple brings this suit to put a stop to it,” the lawsuit says. 
In a statement to 9to5Mac , an Apple spokesperson said: 
“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.” 
Update: Read OpenAI’s response here . 
Apple accuses OpenAI of trade secret theft 
The lawsuit names Chang Liu and Tang Tan as two of the defendants. 
Tang Tan served as VP of product design at Apple, leading iPhone and Apple Watch product design. 
He departed the company in February 2024 to work with Jony Ive . 
Chang Liu, meanwhile, worked at Apple for eight years and was a senior system electrical engineer before departing to join OpenAI in January 2026. 
Apple’s lawsuit also names OpenAI and io Products as defendants. 
OpenAI’s hardware efforts are being led by Jony Ive, Apple’s former chief design officer. 
OpenAI acquired Ive’s startup io as part of a $6.5 billion deal last year. 
OpenAI’s takeover of the company included more than 50 engineers, developers, and other employees. 
In its original announcement , OpenAI touted that Ive founded io in collaboration with Scott Cannon, Evans Hankey, and Tan. 
Hankey led Apple’s design team for several years after Ive departed the company. 
She departed in 2022 before reuniting with Ive as part of io. 
Cannon also previously worked at Apple. 
Ive, Hankey, and Cannon are not personally mentioned anywhere in Apple’s initial filing today. 
Apple says it first raised concerns with OpenAI directly in February, asking the company to investigate and address the issue. 
OpenAI, however, never responded. 
Apple says the conduct detailed in the filing is “the tip of the iceberg.” 
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. 
This much is clear, however: at every level, from members of its Technical Staff to its Chief Hardware Officer, and in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple’s trade secrets and confidential information. 
As a natural result, OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests. 
Jony Ive and Sam Altman 
The complaint, filed in the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Tan used insider knowledge of Apple’s confidential projects to grill job candidates in interviews and learn more confidential information. 
Additionally, Tan directed job candidates still working at Apple to bring actual Apple hardware components and samples for “show and tell” sessions. 
When interviewing Apple employees for jobs at OpenAI, Mr. 
Tan uses Apple’s confidential information to gain access to even more insider knowledge. 
He has used an Apple internal project codename to ask, “What’s the plan[?]” 
for an unannounced Apple product. 
He has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” from Apple to their interviews for “show and tell” sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information. 
These directions to bring Apple’s parts to OpenAI job interviews surprised at least one of the candidates, who commented that he “didn’t even know we could take those from the office.” 
OpenAI has been instructing Apple employees to bring “CAD/design artifacts” and “prototypes” to their interviews and to divulge details about their work such as “subsystem and component selection,” the “tools or methodologies you use for system integration, such as CAD software, simulation tools,” and “Vendor selection and communication/collaboration with vendors.” 
Furthermore, Apple says a candidate began “screenshotting and downloading files relating to a highly confidential Apple project” hours before interviewing with Tan, who then “solicited more information about that same Apple project” once the interview started. 
This became an “established pattern,” Apple says. 
Tan also allegedly possessed and distributed an internal Apple “Need to Know” document to new OpenAI hires before they gave their notice to Apple. 
The document included Apple’s departure security protocols. 
As part of its investigation, Apple found a “pattern by employees who depart for OpenAI of taking steps to evade the security processes intended to protect Apple’s confidential information.” 
Meanwhile, Apple also claims former engineer Liu exploited a security bug to download confidential engineering files after leaving the company. 
Rather than report the exploit, Liu allegedly joked about it in messages (“LOL,” “so funny”). 
Liu also failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after his departure. 
Apple alleges that Liu downloaded a “compilation of technical files with over a thousand pages” with details of work he did at Apple. 
This included detailed manufacturing documents covering the complex circuit boards used in Apple hardware products. 
Liu also allegedly coached another Apple employee at the time, whom he was recruiting to OpenAI, on which confidential materials to study before her own OpenAI interview. 
Finally, Apple alleges that OpenAI had a trusted Apple partner carry out Apple’s proprietary metal-finishing technique, misleading the partner into believing it had Apple’s permission to do so. 
Apple also says OpenAI approached a second longtime Apple supplier that works on power and battery manufacturing, using insider terminology to ask “targeted questions” about specific Apple components. 
The suit seeks injunctive relief and damages, and comes as OpenAI works to bring its first consumer hardware device to market. 
Apple’s lawsuit also comes after Bloomberg reported that OpenAI was preparing “legal action” against Apple over how its partnership to integrate ChatGPT into Siri played out. 
Today’s lawsuit from Apple, however, says that agreement is not at issue here. 
Tan and Liu are just two of many Apple employees who have departed for OpenAI. 
Today’s filing says that there are over 400 former Apple employees now working at OpenAI. 
There have been various rumors about OpenAI’s hardware efforts so far. 
In April, Ming-Chi Kuo reported that OpenAI is developing its own smartphone, which could launch in 2028. 
The Information has also reported on OpenAI’s work on a HomePod-style smart speaker. 
You can read the full filing below and find the PDF linked here . 
Apple Inc. v. 
Liu et al Download 
Bring wireless CarPlay to any car 
“Apple: The First 50 Years” by David Pogue 
Logitech MX Master 4 
Belkin 3-in-1 MagSafe Charger 
Beats Woven USB-C Charging Cables 
AirPods Pro 3: $222 (Reg. 
$249) 
Follow Chance : Threads , Bluesky , Instagram , and Mastodon . 
Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news: 
Chance is the editor-in-chief of 9to5Mac, overseeing the entire site’s operations. 
He also hosts the 9to5Mac Daily and 9to5Mac Happy Hour podcasts. 
You can send tips, questions, and typos to chance@9to5mac.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Chance Miller: 2.3%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Chance Miller: 2.1%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.6%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.2%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias1.2%This article: 2.9%Chance Miller: 3.6%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 2.6%Chance Miller: 3.9%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 0.1%Chance Miller: 0.9%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.1%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 3.7%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Chance Miller: 1.4%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 12.3%Chance Miller: 1.9%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias12.3%This article: 6.0%Chance Miller: 1.8%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 1.7%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error1.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Chance Miller: 2.4%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Chance Miller: 1.1%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 1.7%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Chance Miller: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem1.2%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Chance Miller: 2.3%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.2%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope1.2%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%Chance Miller: 4.8%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 2.7%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring2.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.8%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 3.8%Chance Miller: 1.5%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.4%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.4%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.1%Chance Miller: 2.5%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.4%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Chance Miller: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 1.3%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 5.4%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.8%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Chance Miller: 10.1%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.6%

1204 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers10%attributed speech1,079writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageChance Miller • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageApple • 13 words • 0.0% coverage9to5Mac • 10 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 32 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 24 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage9to5Mac • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Apple

86%flagged-word coverage
96 attributed words77% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Apple: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Apple: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Apple: 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.