What Happened: A Lawsuit Built on a Misrouted Email
In August 2026, OpenAI published a blog post titled “Apple is getting this wrong” in response to a lawsuit filed by Apple. The lawsuit alleges that two former Apple employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, who now work at OpenAI, misappropriated Apple’s trade secrets. OpenAI’s rebuttal paints a different picture: the lawsuit may be based on a series of misunderstandings, starting with an email that was sent to the wrong person.
According to OpenAI, Apple initially claimed they had contacted OpenAI in February and received no response. However, Apple later admitted that their outside lawyers had emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names. The email was intended for OpenAI’s General Counsel, Che Chang, but was mistakenly sent to someone else. Apple also claimed they had a discussion with OpenAI’s General Counsel, but they now concede that conversation never happened.
More importantly, OpenAI states that the specific allegations in the lawsuit were never raised during that initial contact. Instead, Apple’s outside counsel, Gabriel Gross, told OpenAI they were “resolving any issues.” After that, OpenAI heard nothing for five months until Apple filed the lawsuit. OpenAI has made the email correspondence public, allowing anyone to read the exchange and judge for themselves.
The “Residual Access” Defense: Who’s Really at Fault?
A central accusation in Apple’s lawsuit is that Chang Liu accessed Apple confidential information after leaving the company. OpenAI counters this by publishing iMessage conversations that tell a different story. The messages show Apple employees reaching out to Chang Liu—whose last day at Apple was January 22, 2026—to ask for help locating files and information for their work.
In the messages, Chang Liu is seen assisting his former colleagues with file transfers, even reminding them to log out of his iCloud account to avoid mixing personal and company data. For example, on January 27, 2026, he writes: “You can keep my icloud connected if you still need more time. But might want to sign off my iMessage. As there might be my new company stuff showing up in that laptop.”
OpenAI argues that this “residual access” is actually a systemic issue at Apple: when employees leave, Apple fails to properly revoke system access. This means former employees—even those trying to do the right thing—still have access to Apple files, despite not wanting them or even being aware of them. In this case, Chang Liu was actively helping Apple employees, not stealing secrets.
What This Means for Product Builders: Offboarding Done Right
For anyone building products or managing teams, this case is a cautionary tale about offboarding processes. When an employee leaves, access revocation must be immediate and comprehensive. Apple’s failure to do so created a situation where a former employee could be accused of accessing confidential information, even when acting in good faith.
Here are practical steps to avoid similar pitfalls:
- Automate access revocation: Use identity and access management (IAM) tools to automatically disable accounts and revoke permissions on the employee’s last day. Don’t rely on manual processes that can be forgotten.
- Audit residual access: Regularly audit system access for former employees. If you find lingering access, investigate and fix it promptly.
- Document offboarding procedures: Have a clear checklist for offboarding, including revoking access to email, cloud storage, code repositories, and internal tools.
- Communicate with departing employees: Ensure they understand what access they have and what they should do to help with the transition, such as transferring files or logging out of accounts.
By implementing these measures, you can reduce the risk of misunderstandings and legal disputes.
The Human Element: Trust and Communication
Beyond technical processes, this case highlights the importance of trust and communication. OpenAI emphasizes that Tang Tan, who served Apple for over 24 years, was always clear with his team that they must not use any confidential information from other companies. This is a reminder that when hiring senior talent, clear communication about confidentiality obligations is essential.
OpenAI also notes that they offered to work with Apple to resolve the issues before the lawsuit, but Apple chose to litigate instead. This suggests that a more collaborative approach could have prevented the dispute. For product teams, this is a lesson in conflict resolution: when issues arise, consider reaching out to the other party to clarify misunderstandings before escalating to legal action.
Limitations and Unresolved Questions
It’s important to note that this article is based solely on OpenAI’s blog post and the evidence they chose to publish. Apple’s full response and any additional evidence have not been considered. The lawsuit is ongoing, and the court will ultimately decide the merits of the case.
Some questions remain unanswered: Why did Apple wait five months after the initial contact to file the lawsuit? What specific allegations were made, and are they supported by evidence? OpenAI’s public disclosure of emails and messages is a strategic move, but it doesn’t provide the complete picture.
For product builders, the takeaway is not to jump to conclusions but to learn from the systemic issues highlighted. The case underscores the importance of robust offboarding procedures and transparent communication in the tech industry.
A Concrete Takeaway for Your Team
The most actionable lesson from this dispute is to treat offboarding as a critical security event. Implement automated access revocation, conduct regular audits, and maintain open lines of communication with departing employees. By doing so, you can protect your company’s intellectual property while also respecting the rights of former employees.
In an industry where talent moves frequently, clear processes and honest communication are more valuable than legal battles. As OpenAI puts it, they are “much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.” That’s a sentiment worth sharing.
Sources
AI-assisted summary compiled from the sources above, reviewed by a human before publishing.