OpenAI Hit With NYT Evidence Claims and Apple IP Lawsuit

OpenAI is now fighting on two legal fronts at once — one over how it trained ChatGPT, the other over how it's building hardware to compete with the iPhone.

The NYT case: allegations of hidden evidence

The New York Times and The Daily News have been suing OpenAI over copyright infringement for two years. This week, their lawyers escalated the fight, alleging OpenAI concealed evidence relevant to its fair-use defense.

The claim centers on an April deposition of OpenAI data privacy engineer Vinnie Monaco, who reportedly revealed that OpenAI ran internal searches of its training corpus. Plaintiffs say OpenAI built a database of roughly 78 million de-identified ChatGPT conversations for internal use, and used a tool called "Bloom filter" — part of an internal effort called "Project Giraffe" — to detect and record when outputs regurgitated training content.

On discovery, plaintiffs originally requested 120 million chat logs; OpenAI negotiated that down to 20 million logs, submitted to courts in December. Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Ian B. Crosby, argues that the alleged concealment undermines OpenAI's fair-use defense. OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri countered that the Times is "persisting with efforts to invade the privacy" of unrelated users as its case weakens.

No information has been reported on whether courts have actually accepted the concealment allegations, and it's unclear how this case relates procedurally to the Apple suit described below.

The Apple case: trade secret theft allegations

Separately, Apple has filed suit against OpenAI, its hardware subsidiary io Products, and two former Apple employees — Tang Tan and Chang Liu — alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract.

Tang Tan, a 24-year Apple veteran and former VP of product design, left in February 2024 to work with Jony Ive. Chang Liu, an 8-year Apple systems electrical engineer, joined OpenAI more recently (sources give slightly different dates — see below). Apple alleges Tang Tan directed active Apple employees to bring hardware components to "show and tell" sessions at OpenAI, and that Chang Liu exploited a security bug to download confidential engineering files — including over a thousand pages on circuit board manufacturing — after leaving Apple.

Apple first raised concerns directly with OpenAI in a February letter before filing suit. The company is asking the court to bar OpenAI from using its trade secrets, order the return of confidential materials, and preserve evidence.

This dispute sits against the backdrop of OpenAI's $6.5 billion acquisition of Jony Ive's hardware startup io Products, which brought over 50 employees into the company. More broadly, over 400 former Apple employees are now reported to work at OpenAI, which is expected to launch its first hardware product next year — rumored to compete directly with the iPhone.

OpenAI's Drew Pusateri responded to the Apple lawsuit directly: "We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets."

Sources differ on the exact timing of Chang Liu's departure from Apple — 9to5mac cites "January 2026," TechCrunch cites "2026," and The Verge cites "January," without clearly specifying the year. The io Products acquisition is similarly described as happening "last year" (TechCrunch) versus "2025" (The Verge) — the two may or may not be consistent.

What's missing from the picture

Several open questions remain unanswered in current reporting: what damages Apple is seeking beyond injunctive relief, whether Tang Tan or Chang Liu have individually responded to the allegations, how many of the 400+ former Apple employees at OpenAI are implicated versus simply hired through normal recruiting, and whether trial dates have been set in either case.

Why founders should care

For early-stage founders, especially those building AI products or eyeing hardware, these cases plausibly signal a few shifts worth watching:

Data governance is becoming a legal exposure point. If the NYT allegations hold up, internal practices around training data — how it's stored, searched, and disclosed in litigation — could increasingly become discoverable liabilities for any company training models on third-party content.
Aggressive hiring from competitors carries rising IP risk. Apple's suit suggests that as AI labs poach specialized talent (especially for hardware efforts), courts may scrutinize whether that talent brought protected information with them. Startups recruiting from well-resourced incumbents may want to document clean-room practices and hiring safeguards proactively.
Legal costs could increasingly compete with product timelines. OpenAI's hardware ambitions — including a product rumored to challenge the iPhone next year — are unfolding alongside costly litigation. Smaller startups partnering with or competing against large AI labs should weigh how legal distraction at the top of the market might affect deal timelines, hiring pools, or competitive dynamics.
Regulatory and legal risk for large AI labs appears to be intensifying. Two simultaneous, high-profile suits from major companies suggest scrutiny of AI companies' practices — both in data use and personnel — is unlikely to ease soon, which could shape how investors and partners evaluate risk across the sector.