Anurag Chawake:

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.

Malcolm Owen:

The lawsuit accuses Apple of collecting biometric data without user consent in the Photos app, reports The 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.

Brian Webster:

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.

According to a Reuters report today, OpenAI filed a motion on Wednesday seeking dismissal of Apple’s complaint. Apple had sued OpenAI and two former Apple employees, alleging trade-secret theft aimed at helping OpenAI expand into consumer hardware.

OpenAI’s lawyers stated: “OpenAI has no use, need or desire for Apple’s trade secrets. OpenAI is building something entirely new and different from anything at Apple.” They argued that Apple’s complaint fails to sufficiently describe the claimed trade secrets (calling the generalized product-development categories inadequate), does not show ownership of a protectable trade secret, and does not plausibly allege misappropriation. The filing also said Apple should not be allowed to use a “baseless and pretextual lawsuit” to offset difficulties retaining talent or integrating AI into its products.

Apple’s earlier complaint (filed in July) claimed OpenAI systematically obtained and used confidential information via former employees, recruiting practices, and supplier relationships to speed up its consumer-hardware plans. The dispute centers on competition for future AI devices that may not rely on traditional apps or operating systems and could draw attention away from the iPhone; analysts believe OpenAI is developing a phone or similar device.

The two companies still maintain a partnership that lets Apple users access ChatGPT through Siri and sign up for ChatGPT memberships via iOS settings. Apple did not immediately comment on the motion.

MacDailyNews Take: The usual legal wrangling. We highly doubt the case will be summarily dismissed.

‎
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!

Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.

The post OpenAI seeks dismissal of Apple’s trade secrets lawsuit appeared first on MacDailyNews.

Sarah Perez (Hacker News):

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.

OpenAI (Hacker News, ArsTechnica, The Verge, MacRumors, 9To5Mac):

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.

William Gallagher:

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.

asimpletune:

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.

Previously:

• Confidential Apple Files in iCloud
• Apple Sues OpenAI Over Trade Secrets

Update (2026-08-05): John Gruber:

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.

Juli Clover:

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.

Andrew Orr:

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.

John Gruber (Mastodon):

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.

Eric Schwarz:

As many things I know about Apple, this whole thing both makes perfect sense and feels absolutely bonkers.

Previously:

• OpenAI Open Letter Responds to Apple Lawsuit
• Apple Sues OpenAI Over Trade Secrets
• Privacy for Apple Employees

Ryan Merket (Hacker News, PDF):

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.

Previously:

• Apple Upgrade
• Advertising Cognitive Dissonance
• App Store Personalized Recommendations and Keylogging
• UK Again Wants iCloud Backdoor

Apple has asked a federal judge for a preliminary injunction that would stop OpenAI and two of its former employees from accessing, using, or disclosing what the iPhone maker claims are its confidential trade secrets, escalating a high-stakes legal battle over artificial intelligence and future consumer devices.

In a filing Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple argued it faces “irreparable harm” without the order. The motion comes weeks after the company sued OpenAI, the two ex-employees now working for the ChatGPT maker, and OpenAI’s commercial arm io Products. Apple alleges the defendants misappropriated proprietary information to advance OpenAI’s push into consumer hardware.

The two former Apple staffers named are Chang Liu, previously a senior system electrical engineer, and Tang Yew Tan, who served as vice president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch. Apple is also seeking expedited discovery, including documents related to alleged access of its trade secrets, and depositions of Liu, Tan, OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng, an unnamed OpenAI worker who previously worked at Apple, and corporate representatives from OpenAI and io Products.

The lawsuit highlights growing rivalry between the two tech giants. Analysts have suggested OpenAI is developing its own phone or other AI-powered device that could operate without traditional apps or operating systems, potentially drawing users away from Apple’s dominant iPhone ecosystem. The legal action follows OpenAI’s successful defense against a separate challenge from Elon Musk’s xAI.

The case underscores intensifying competition in AI hardware, where control over key technical knowledge could shape the next generation of consumer gadgets. A ruling on the injunction request is pending.

MacDailyNews Take: OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, the AI for newbies who don’t know better alternatives exist, seems to be filled with traitors.

‎
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!

Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.

The post Apple seeks court order to block OpenAI from using alleged trade secrets in hardware ambitions appeared first on MacDailyNews.