Apple files lawsuit accusing OpenAI of stealing trade secrets  NBC4 Washington 23%

By Kaitlyn Huamani29% Matt O'brien0% The Associated Press63%

7/10/2026, 5:03:22 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 1,173 faulty-reasoning hits from 827 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.3% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,892 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.20% of the article peer group.

Apple and OpenAI logos. 
Apple on Friday accused OpenAI of stealing trade secrets as it seeks to build its own hardware for ChatGPT, a major rupture in a partnership between the iPhone maker and the artificial intelligence company. 
Apple said in the lawsuit filed in a California federal court that OpenAI encouraged Apple employees it was recruiting to share confidential information, even guiding how to avoid scrutiny when taking jobs at the other company. 
“This case is about Apple’s former employees stealing Apple’s trade secrets for the benefit of OpenAI,” the filing says. 
“Apple brings this suit to put a stop to it.” 
Two former Apple employees who now work for OpenAI are also named as defendants. 
One is Tang Tan, who helped design the iPhone, Apple Watch and iPod and is now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer. 
The other is Chang Liu, a former electrical engineer Apple says it entrusted with some of its most sensitive product development efforts before Liu left Apple to join OpenAI earlier this year. 
OpenAI said it is still reviewing the filing, but spokesperson Drew Pusateri said in a statement Friday that OpenAI has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets. 
We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” 
The suit accuses OpenAI of seeking shortcuts on hardware 
OpenAI has never said exactly what type of device it is building, but has described it as an effort to find a new way to interact with AI that goes beyond “traditional products and interfaces.” 
It’s part of a broader push to create a physical embodiment of the latest AI advances, a decade after Amazon and Google introduced screen-free talking speakers into homes. 
Randolph Mantooth, who played medic in NBC's ‘Emergency!', dies at 80 
Judge grants DOJ's request to toss remaining Jan. 6 convictions of Proud Boys 
The lawsuit claims the effort was built partly on knowledge stolen from Apple. 
“OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,” the lawsuit says. 
Apple said it began investigating whether some of its confidential information was compromised and “uncovered a pattern of theft” of Apple’s trade secrets by former employees who moved on to positions at OpenAI. 
The lawsuit alleges both Liu and Tan accessed Apple’s confidential company information and files while working at OpenAI. 
Among the allegations, Apple claims Liu accessed and downloaded several confidential hardware-related files on an Apple-issued device he kept after departing. 
It also alleges Tan directed job candidates who were still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” from Apple to their interviews at OpenAI. 
Apple said in the lawsuit that it reached out to OpenAI in February to raise its concerns early in its investigation, but said that OpenAI did not respond. 
An Apple spokesperson said in a statement Friday that the company will “always defend our teams’ hard work and innovations, and we are taking all appropriate steps to do so.” 
A partnership with Apple has edged toward rivalry 
Apple sought help from OpenAI several years ago as it was behind in the AI race sparked by ChatGPT’s arrival. 
The two companies partnered in 2024 to use ChatGPT as an AI-powered “answer engine” on the iPhone when the built-in Siri technology couldn’t satisfy user needs. 
More recently, the partnership has veered toward rivalry. 
As part of its expansion efforts, OpenAI recruited former Apple designer Jony Ive to oversee a project to build an AI-powered device that many analysts believe could eventually challenge Apple’s products. 
Last year, OpenAI announced it was working on a secret hardware collaboration with Ive to pioneer a new way of communicating with artificial intelligence. 
As part of the collaboration, OpenAI acquired io Products, a product and engineering company co-founded by Ive, Tan and two others, in a deal valued at nearly $6.5 billion. 
That led a little-known tech startup iyO Inc. to sue Ive and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman for trademark infringement due to the similar-sounding name and the firms’ past interactions. 
The startup also sued one of its own former employees for allegedly leaking a confidential drawing of iyO’s unreleased product, and it later added trade secret theft claims against Tan to the lawsuit. 
Apple’s lawsuit also names io Products as a defendant. 
Lawyers who previously represented the firm and Tan referred The Associated Press to OpenAI for comment. 
Apple’s lawsuit comes as OpenAI has been exploring whether to go public on Wall Street and faces heightened competition from rivals including Anthropic and Google. 
OpenAI winnowed down some of its business ventures earlier this year to focus on its core product, ChatGPT, but has continued to pursue a device, the company’s chief financial officer told The Associated Press this spring. 
“We have consumer hardware that will come towards the end of this year,” CFO Sarah Friar told the AP in April. 
Copyright The Associated Press 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.4%Kaitlyn Huamani: 3.5%NBC4 Washington: 3.8%Confirmation Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.4%NBC4 Washington: 2.3%Availability Heuristic3.7%This article: 8.8%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.9%NBC4 Washington: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic8.8%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 29.6%Kaitlyn Huamani: 8.0%NBC4 Washington: 11.1%Framing Effect29.6%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.4%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.4%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.9%NBC4 Washington: 1.4%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.8%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Kaitlyn Huamani: 6.0%NBC4 Washington: 6.8%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 12.9%Kaitlyn Huamani: 3.8%NBC4 Washington: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.4%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Kaitlyn Huamani: 2.8%NBC4 Washington: 0.8%Halo Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.0%NBC4 Washington: 2.8%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.9%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.5%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Kaitlyn Huamani: 3.0%NBC4 Washington: 2.7%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.6%NBC4 Washington: 0.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.6%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.2%NBC4 Washington: 2.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.4%NBC4 Washington: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 2.6%NBC4 Washington: 1.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 8.9%Kaitlyn Huamani: 2.3%NBC4 Washington: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.3%NBC4 Washington: 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.5%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Kaitlyn Huamani: 2.0%NBC4 Washington: 2.0%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 5.4%Kaitlyn Huamani: 2.3%NBC4 Washington: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 4.6%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.6%NBC4 Washington: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 1.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.9%NBC4 Washington: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaitlyn Huamani: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

827 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers46%attributed speech443writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 34 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 32 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 27 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageApple • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 28 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 31 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageThe Associated Press • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 36 words • 0.0% coverageSarah Friar • 21 words • 0.0% coverageThe Associated Press • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Apple

100%flagged-word coverage
214 attributed words56% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+16.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Apple: 16.8%16.8%Quote-first Misdirection-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Apple: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%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.