Story
September 5, 2026
Apple Says OpenAI Let Key Evidence Vanish in Its AI Hardware War
Apple portrays the fight as a race to preserve evidence of stolen hardware secrets, while OpenAI says the lawsuit reflects Apple’s weak employee-exit controls and anxiety over an increasingly fierce AI rivalry.
The dispute began as a partnership. In June 2024, Apple and OpenAI announced plans to put ChatGPT across the iPhone, iPad and Mac, with Sam Altman calling it a way to make AI more accessible to Apple users.1
By May 2025, the relationship had shifted. OpenAI’s $6.4 billion purchase of Jony Ive’s hardware startup io put the ChatGPT maker directly into territory Apple has long dominated. Apple then sued in July, alleging OpenAI and former Apple employees had taken trade secrets to develop consumer AI hardware; OpenAI denied knowing of evidence supporting that claim and defended workers’ right to move jobs.1
The courtroom clash intensified in August. Apple sought a preliminary injunction on Aug. 3, and OpenAI moved to dismiss two days later, arguing that the case was really an attempt to deflect from Apple’s difficulty retaining engineers and competing in AI. In its response, OpenAI called the dispute “a mess of Apple’s own making” and said Apple could not turn “sloppy procedures” into liability for others.1
Apple’s latest filing turns the argument from competition to preservation. The company says OpenAI did not provide a MacBook used by former employee Chang Liu until Aug. 21, despite possessing it since the lawsuit began. Apple says its inspection found Liu had downloaded a confidential circuit schematic and used it at OpenAI, alongside messages discussing the need to restore and begin using Apple-owned devices after he learned of an internal investigation.2
That, Apple argues, creates a “very real risk of evidence destruction,” because logs, metadata and usage records can be overwritten or lost. It is seeking expedited discovery before those forensic traces disappear. OpenAI rejects the premise: it says there is no evidence Liu obtained Apple information improperly or had any improper purpose, insisting he “has no use for Apple confidential information.”2
A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 1. The immediate question is no longer simply whether secrets changed hands, but whether the digital trail will survive long enough for either side to prove its version.