On Thursday, a US District Court in Oregon ordered the US government to restart the process of approving wind projects. All new wind development in the US has been on hold since August 2025, when the Department of Defense (DoD) stopped participating in a process that allows it to compel developers to alter projects in order to limit their interference with radar equipment. The court ruled, however, that the DoD's national security claims did not allow it to opt out of a process that is legally mandated.
The Trump administration has made many attempts to block wind development, both offshore and land based. Its attempts to stop offshore wind included the same approach at issue in this case: Claim that drone developments mean that radar interference by wind turbines creates a national security risk. The courts were not sympathetic to this claim, including in cases where judges examined a classified report that the DoD was using to justify blocking offshore wind construction. As a result, the administration has turned to paying companies not to pursue wind development.
In parallel, the government was pursuing a similar approach for onshore wind. Here, a law lays out a process for the DoD to evaluate any problems posed by wind turbines and negotiate changes to planned wind farms with the developers. As laid out in the new decision, the government simply stopped participating in this process in August 2025, first by refusing to sign off on previously negotiated agreements, and later by refusing to draft agreements entirely. Eventually, it simply refused to participate in negotiations at all. This has brought a halt to all wind development in the US.
On Thursday, a US District Court in Oregon ordered the US government to restart the process of approving wind projects. All new wind development in the US has been on hold since August 2025, when the Department of Defense (DoD) stopped participating in a process that allows it to compel developers to alter projects in order to limit their interference with radar equipment. The court ruled, however, that the DoD's national security claims did not allow it to opt out of a process that is legally mandated.
The Trump administration has made many attempts to block wind development, both offshore and land based. Its attempts to stop offshore wind included the same approach at issue in this case: Claim that drone developments mean that radar interference by wind turbines creates a national security risk. The courts were not sympathetic to this claim, including in cases where judges examined a classified report that the DoD was using to justify blocking offshore wind construction. As a result, the administration has turned to paying companies not to pursue wind development.
In parallel, the government was pursuing a similar approach for onshore wind. Here, a law lays out a process for the DoD to evaluate any problems posed by wind turbines and negotiate changes to planned wind farms with the developers. As laid out in the new decision, the government simply stopped participating in this process in August 2025, first by refusing to sign off on previously negotiated agreements, and later by refusing to draft agreements entirely. Eventually, it simply refused to participate in negotiations at all. This has brought a halt to all wind development in the US.
Apple faces a $32.5 billion lawsuit over how its Photos app scans and stores faces. A federal judge cleared the case to proceed as a class action late last month, allowing millions of Illinois iPhone owners to join.
The case has been years in the making, and Apple has fought to shut it down at nearly every turn. Now it heads back to the court, with the company’s privacy practices on trial.
[…]
Court records have shown that the update applies to users with iCloud Photos turned on. Those accounts also need to use at least 10GB of storage and contain at least 5,000 photos and videos. Plaintiffs say all this amounts to collecting biometric data without consent, putting Apple squarely at odds with Illinois law.
Again, I find it odd that features are apparently gated based on the capacity of your iCloud account rather than the available storage.
The lawsuit accuses Apple of collecting biometric data without user consent in the Photos app, reportsThe Times. It is alleged that Photos uses facial recognition technology to scan individuals who appear in images, creating a “faceprint” for each person in the photo library.
After collecting enough samples, an algorithm is allegedly used to identify the iPhone user. That data is then stored on the iPhone within the Photos app.
I don’t see what the issue is here. My understanding is that it only uploads vectors after you’ve opted in by enabling iCloud Photos and manually assigning names. Also, the vectors don’t seem like the sort of biometric information that the law was meant to protect.
Assuming things are working properly, what should happen is that the people you have specifically named and the photos you have specifically verified sync their info via iCloud. However, the actual face detection for the rest of the photos is done on a per device basis and is not synced via iCloud, primarily for security/privacy reasons.
So, when you first set up a new device, it will pull down the names and info for the photos where you have identified a particular person, but then it still needs to go through the entire library on-device, identify the faces in each photo, and compare them to the synced information to tell which person is in which photo. So once it’s done, you should end up with mostly the same photos identified as each person, but each device still needs to do its own face detection locally.
Apple lawsuit against OpenAI has reached its first major procedural challenge, with the ChatGPT developer asking a US federal judge to dismiss allegations that it acquired or used trade secrets taken by former Apple employees.
OpenAI submitted its 31-page dismissal motion on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The filing argues that Apple has not adequately identified protectable trade secrets or alleged facts showing that OpenAI misappropriated confidential information.
Apple filed the case on July 10 against OpenAI, its io Products hardware operation, former Apple Vice President Tang Yew Tan, and former electrical engineer Chang Liu. The complaint accuses the defendants of obtaining information connected to Apple’s product development, manufacturing, components, testing, and supply chain operations.
The allegations have not been proven, and OpenAI denies possessing or seeking Apple’s trade secrets. US District Judge Edward Davila must now decide whether Apple’s complaint contains enough factual detail for the litigation to continue.
OpenAI Challenges the Apple Lawsuit
OpenAI’s motion focuses initially on how Apple described the information it claims was stolen. According to OpenAI, the complaint relies on generalized product-development categories without identifying the protected information with enough precision.
Trade secret plaintiffs face a difficult balance at the beginning of litigation. Apple must describe the protected material sufficiently to establish a plausible legal claim, but revealing the material publicly could expose the same information it is trying to protect.
Sensitive details can later be handled under seal or through a protective order. At the dismissal stage, however, Apple must still provide enough information for the court to distinguish genuine trade secrets from general engineering knowledge, employee experience, or skills acquired through years of work.
OpenAI argues that Apple has not crossed that threshold. Its motion says the complaint fails to establish ownership of a protectable trade secret and does not plausibly allege that OpenAI acquired, disclosed, or used such information.
The filing also disputes the commercial premise behind Apple’s accusations. OpenAI says it is developing products that are different from Apple’s hardware and has no need or desire to use the iPhone maker’s confidential material.
That position does not settle whether information was taken. A company can potentially misappropriate trade secrets even when its eventual product has a different design. The court’s immediate task is narrower: determining whether Apple has alleged facts that could support its claims if those facts are later proven.
Apple Park | Image Source: Google
Disputed Access to Apple Information
Apple’s complaint centers partly on Chang Liu, who spent eight years working as a senior system electrical engineer at the company before joining OpenAI in January 2026.
Apple alleges that Liu retained an Apple-issued computer and accessed confidential technical information after leaving. It claims he exploited residual authentication access on multiple occasions to obtain internal documents while already working for OpenAI.
OpenAI presents a different explanation. It says Apple employees contacted Liu after his departure and asked him to help locate files needed for ongoing Apple work. The company published redacted messages that it says support this account.
OpenAI argues that Apple’s systems and policies allowed personal and corporate information to become intermingled through iCloud accounts. Former employees, it says, could retain access to Apple files without requesting it or realizing that access remained active.
The motion maintains that Apple cannot treat the foreseeable effects of its own access-management practices as proof that former employees intentionally stole data. Apple, in contrast, alleges that its records document repeated access to restricted information rather than an accidental discovery of lingering permissions.
These competing accounts are likely to become central if the case enters discovery. Authentication logs, downloaded files, device records, internal communications, and employment timelines could establish whether access was deliberate, what information was obtained, and whether it reached anyone working on OpenAI products.
A dismissal motion normally tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It is not a trial, and the judge is not expected to resolve every factual disagreement using competing evidence at this point.
Tang Tan and OpenAI’s Hardware Team
Apple separately accuses Tang Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, of seeking confidential information from Apple employees during recruiting conversations.
Tan spent more than 24 years at Apple and worked on products including the iPhone, Apple Watch, AirPods, and iPod. He later helped establish io Products with former Apple design chief Jony Ive and other collaborators. OpenAI acquired the hardware company as part of its effort to create a family of devices built around artificial intelligence.
Apple alleges that Tan used confidential project names, retained internal materials, and encouraged job candidates to discuss unreleased components or bring physical parts to interviews. OpenAI rejects the claim that these interactions formed a coordinated effort to collect Apple secrets.
OpenAI says Tan repeatedly instructed employees that confidential information from previous employers could not be brought into its organization. It also offers an alternative explanation for an Apple offboarding document found in his possession, arguing that Tan retained it to help incoming employees comply with Apple’s departure procedures.
Apple’s position is that the document and recruiting communications must be examined alongside the other alleged conduct. It describes the events as part of a connected campaign rather than isolated employment or administrative issues.
The dispute comes during intense competition for engineers capable of developing consumer AI hardware. Apple alleges that more than 400 former employees have moved to OpenAI, although hiring people from a competitor does not by itself establish trade secret misappropriation.
A company must generally connect recruitment to the acquisition, disclosure, or use of protected information. OpenAI is relying heavily on that distinction, presenting Apple’s lawsuit as an attempt to respond to employee departures and its difficulties competing for AI talent.
Image Credit: Getty Images
Apple Seeks Immediate Restrictions
OpenAI’s dismissal request arrives shortly after Apple asked the court for a preliminary injunction. Apple wants restrictions imposed while the lawsuit proceeds, arguing that it could suffer harm if its confidential information is used during OpenAI’s hardware development.
The requested relief would prevent OpenAI and the individual defendants from acquiring, accessing, using, or disclosing the alleged trade secrets. Apple has also requested expedited discovery and forensic examination of relevant devices and accounts.
OpenAI says those restrictions are unnecessary because it does not possess or want Apple’s protected information. It has described Apple’s request as based on false information and has offered to cooperate in addressing specific concerns.
The two companies also disagree over their communications before the lawsuit. Apple initially said its concerns had been raised with OpenAI months earlier. OpenAI responded that Apple’s outside lawyers contacted the wrong person after confusing names and incorrectly described a conversation with OpenAI’s general counsel.
OpenAI says Apple did not present the specific accusations before filing the case and that the companies had previously discussed resolving any access issues. Apple has since provided additional information in support of its injunction request, including allegations involving other former employees.
These disputes have moved beyond ordinary court filings. OpenAI published messages and emails on its website to support its version of events, calling Apple’s lawsuit aggressive and poorly investigated. Apple has primarily presented its account through formal legal submissions.
Judge Davila could dismiss some or all of Apple’s claims, deny the motion, or allow Apple to amend its complaint with more specific allegations. Even a dismissal would not necessarily end the case if permission to revise the complaint is granted.
The next scheduled public test is an October 1 hearing covering Apple’s preliminary injunction and request for early discovery. That proceeding may determine whether OpenAI faces immediate limits on its hardware work before the underlying trade secret claims receive a full evidentiary review.
Apple is now seeking a preliminary injunction in its trade secrets case against OpenAI, which aims to stop the AI model maker from moving forward with developing an AI device or other products based on Apple’s technology. […] In a new filing, Apple is requesting expedited discovery from the accused OpenAI employees, senior systems engineer Chang Liu and Chief Hardware Officer Tang Yew Tan; OpenAI, and its foundation; and io, the device startup co-founded by Apple’s former lead designer Jony Ive.
Apple had claimed that they contacted OpenAI in February and that we didn’t respond. They now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names—only after we brought this to their attention. Apple also claimed they had a discussion with our General Counsel, which they now concede never happened. But they again hide the fact that they never raised the specific allegations in this lawsuit at that time, and that they in fact told us that they were “resolving any issues”. We then heard nothing for five months until they sued. In their latest filing, Apple tries hard to spin this sequence of events, but you can just read the emails for yourself here.
Apple accuses Chang Liu of accessing Apple confidential information after leaving the company, but only now admits that Apple employees reached out to him and asked for his help to locate this information (you can read the messages here). Apple now tries to shift the blame to “residual access”, but they also don’t disclose that this is a common issue with Apple which is caused by them failing to properly manage system access when people leave. What that means in practice is that former employees who are trying to do the right thing when they leave still have access to Apple files—despite not wanting them or even being aware of them.
What it does not even touch is the accusation that Chang Liu retained his Apple laptop, which seems to be proven by what OpenAI posted. Apple further says that Liu entered shared network folders after leaving the company, and did so to download dozens of confidential files.
Then, too, OpenAI ignores the specific further accusation that ex-Apple employee Tang Tan both emailed documents to himself and sought trade secrets from employees he was recruiting for the ChatGPT company.
What really matters is the claim that Apple never raised those issues in the lawsuit with them. OpenAI claims the emails prove this, but to me all the emails prove is Apple sent an email that said “please see the attached letters”. We don’t know what is in the attachments but I imagine those were the relevant issues they raised.
[…]
The fact that the lawyer emailed the wrong person is moot if they caught it and resolved it days later.
In OpenAI’s phrasing, it sounds like Apple’s attorney sent the entire initial letter of concern to the wrong person, and that’s why OpenAI never responded — because it wasn’t sent to the correct person (OpenAI general counsel Che Chang). That’s not what happened. The initial blockbuster “hey we think you guys are stealing our trade secrets and we want to talk to you about it” letter was sent to Che Chang. And Che Chang never did respond to Apple’s lawyers. That a mistaken email thanking Che Chang for a phone call that never happened (because that email was intended for another OpenAI employee) was also sent is irrelevant. I don’t understand why OpenAI is continuing to focus on this inconsequential mistake.
[…]
The iMessage transcripts that OpenAI provides at the bottom of their post do not contradict Apple’s claims at all. […] Apple also claims that Liu accessed confidential information, presumably in Box and definitely not in iCloud Drive, on five different occasions, up until 27 April 2026, over three months after he left Apple. These chat transcripts offer no explanation for that.
[…]
To me, the most interesting response from OpenAI wasn’t their blog post, and was in fact released by Apple, as “Exhibit F” to one of their expert declarations submitted to the court last night.
The way Apple combines work and personal iCloud accounts left some employees able to access confidential documents after departing the company, reports The Information. The site spoke to more than half a dozen former Apple employees who were unknowingly left with access to sensitive content.
[…]
Apple told The Information that the OpenAI lawsuit is unrelated to any files left available on iCloud and that it does not pursue legal claims against former employees who accidentally have Apple documents in their personal iCloud accounts.
[…]
In a now-settled legal dispute, chip company Rivos claimed Apple intentionally lets former employees retain access to files “as part of a planned effort to generate a pretextual basis to sue the employees and their new employer for ‘stealing’ Apple material.” In the Rivos case, an employee was targeted for keeping work files in his personal iCloud account.
The documents included confidential material such as plans for product launch events. The former employees said they made no effort to retain access and unexpectedly found the files mixed with their personal iCloud data.
The problem reportedly grew from Apple’s practice of encouraging employees to connect their personal Apple IDs to company-funded iCloud storage.
[…]
Apple also relied heavily on iMessage for workplace conversations and file sharing before rolling out Slack around 2019. Former employees could retain old iMessage conversations and attachments, while Apple could terminate their Slack access when they left.
If you use your personal Apple ID, you get a magic “Apple Work” folder in iCloud Drive. When you leave Apple, that “Apple Work” folder disappears. But any other files or folders that were shared with you that were outside that magic folder are still in your iCloud Drive, because it’s still your personal iCloud account.
[…]
You still have the same Apple ID account, even though you no longer have an employee @apple.com email account. Overall, this is a humane way of dealing with digital identity. Your Apple ID account is you, the person, not “example@icloud.com”, one specific unique email address. And you, the person, may well have multiple email addresses — all of which can be associated with your one Apple ID account. That makes Apple IDs more nuanced and complicated than a simple mapping of one email address = one account. And it obviously makes access restrictions more complicated.
Yesterday, OpenAI released messages to show that Apple employees (with permission) retained access to the departing employee’s personal iCloud account so that they could access work files that were stored there. It’s just a mess that both the software and corporate policy encourage mixing everything in one account.
The company said his performance was the reason, according to a lawsuit Boardman filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Boardman says that explanation was a pretext. His version of the story begins three years earlier, inside Apple’s technical relationship with the largest wireless carriers in the United States, with a category of data capable of identifying nearly every phone on the network.
[…]
Apple considered serial numbers and IMEIs personally identifiable information under its internal policies, Boardman alleges. Representatives working with carriers other than AT&T required the carrier to obtain a customer release before Apple supplied the data. The Apple representative assigned to AT&T did not enforce that requirement, according to the complaint. Boardman says the identifiers were then transmitted through “unsecured email communications.”
He reported the practice to his manager and sought guidance from Apple’s legal department. He alleges that the company never gave him a written response.
I don’t think he has much of a legal case. Apple was probably within its rights to fire him if what he refused to do was against company policy but not illegal. It doesn’t sound like Apple is disputing that, at least not yet.
However, I think this is interesting because:
This seems to be another case, like yesterday’s story, where the interests of the customer and the carrier are at odds, and Apple leans towards the latter.
It shows that a policy is no guarantee, because it depends on humans choosing to follow it. There are other cases where Apple has been able to engineer privacy into the system. But some data is not end-to-end encrypted, so consent is a formal but a not technical requirement.
Login
