The first public hearing in the case was held in California

On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, representatives of Apple and OpenAI met in federal court in California. According to the Financial Times, the hearing was the first open stage of the legal process between the companies, which two years ago announced the integration of ChatGPT into the iPhone operating system.

Since then, the relationship between the former partners has changed. OpenAI is developing its own line of consumer electronics, and hundreds of former Apple employees have joined its team. It was personnel transitions and the possible use of confidential information that became part of the legal confrontation.

What Apple accuses the developer of ChatGPT

Apple claims that OpenAI and two of its former employees may have illegally obtained confidential company material. Among the data in question is information about the design of future products, trade secrets and manufacturing processes.

One of the plaintiffs is Tang Tan, a former Apple employee who now heads OpenAI's hardware division. The iPhone maker also issued legal warnings to dozens of other former employees who defected to developer ChatGPT.

At the same time, the legal dispute concerns Apple's claims about possible misuse of information. The very fact of theft of trade secrets must still be proven within the process.

OpenAI denies the allegations and demands that the case be dismissed

OpenAI disagrees with Apple's position. The company calls the lawsuit an attempt to prevent the transfer of specialists between employers and insists on the legality of its personnel policy.

During the court session, the parties filed counterclaims. Apple is seeking an injunction against access to and use of its trade secrets, as well as asking the court to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence.

OpenAI, for its part, is asking that the lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety. In addition, on the eve of the hearing, the court partially supported Apple's motion to expedite the provision of certain evidence and conduct interrogations of former employees.

The purchase of Jony Ive's startup increased competition

The legal conflict unfolds against the background of OpenAI's preparations to enter the market of its own artificial intelligence devices. In 2025, the company purchased 6.4 billion dollars io, a hardware startup founded by former Apple chief designer Jony Ive.

Ive left Apple in 2019 and is not involved in the lawsuit. However, its participation in the OpenAI project emphasizes the startup's desire to develop not only software products, but also its own hardware ecosystem.

For Apple, this means the emergence of a competitor that can compete with it not only in the field of AI services, but also in the segment of consumer devices.

The conflict is taking place against the backdrop of changes in the AI ​​market

The confrontation between the companies coincided with the intensification of competition between technology corporations. Apple partnered with Google this year to develop its own artificial intelligence capabilities, while OpenAI continues to expand its presence in consumer technology.

At the same time, Apple is facing delays in the development of the updated Siri. According to the source, the new version of the assistant appeared in beta format only last month, and its availability in the European Union is limited by regulatory requirements.

For OpenAI, the litigation also arose during the period of preparation for a possible initial public offering of shares. However, the further development of the conflict will depend on the evidence, positions of the parties and court decisions.

How can a legal dispute end

Currently, Apple is seeking to protect its confidential developments and get restrictions on their possible use, while OpenAI is trying to get the case closed. Further review should determine whether there is any merit to the iPhone manufacturer's claims.

The outcome of the process could have implications not only for the two companies, but also for the wider technology industry, where the transfer of engineers and designers between competitors is combined with the need to protect trade secrets. At the same time, personnel transfers themselves do not prove a violation of the law: the key question remains whether confidential information was obtained or used improperly.