Apple sued OpenAI on Friday, July 10, 2026, accusing the artificial intelligence company of stealing trade secrets about unreleased hardware products. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, pits two of the world's largest tech companies against each other and underscores the growing legal risks around intellectual property in the AI industry.
Apple's accusations
Apple alleged that OpenAI asked job candidates from Apple to share details about secret projects and to bring device components and prototypes to their interviews. The company also said an OpenAI employee downloaded internal documents from a laptop owned by Apple. That employee and OpenAI's top hardware executive were named as defendants in the suit. Both previously worked at Apple.
The complaint further claims OpenAI used the confidential information to approach Apple's manufacturing partners. In one instance, OpenAI asked a partner to demonstrate Apple's technique for finishing metal on its devices.
A soured partnership
Apple and OpenAI struck a deal in 2024 to offer AI services on Apple devices. But the relationship deteriorated. Apple sent a letter to OpenAI in February 2026, raising concerns that confidential information was "making its way to OpenAI's business improperly," according to the suit. OpenAI did not respond.
Apple's lawsuit states: "OpenAI's nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets."
Why this matters for legal professionals
This case highlights the challenges of enforcing trade secret protections when employees move between competitors. Legal professionals who focus on AI for Legal will see this as a critical example of how alleged misappropriation can unfold across multiple fronts-recruitment, document theft, and supplier outreach. The lawsuit also demonstrates the importance of prompt cease-and-desist letters and the potential consequences of ignoring them, as Apple claims OpenAI did.
For in-house counsel and litigators, the case reinforces the need for strong confidentiality agreements, employee exit protocols, and monitoring of former employees' activities. The outcome could influence how courts assess the use of trade secrets in the AI hardware market.
Your membership also unlocks:
