Apple sent personal legal letters to about 40 former employees now working at OpenAI, directing them to preserve documents and communications and demanding meetings with Apple's lawyers, the Financial Times reported. The letters widen the search for evidence. They do not supply the evidence or a court's conclusion about it. [1]
Apple had filed a trade-secret lawsuit the previous week against OpenAI and two employees, accusing them of stealing secret hardware plans. The lawsuit names two individuals, while the preservation requests reached roughly 10% of about 400 former Apple employees reported to work at OpenAI. That difference makes the new stage significant: a dispute pleaded narrowly against named defendants now touches a much larger circle of potential records and witnesses. [1]
Preservation is the law's instruction not to destroy material that may become relevant. It is not a ruling that every preserved file belongs to Apple, that each recipient possesses relevant evidence or that misconduct occurred. The letters were sent by a litigant's lawyers, not issued as a court order in the refreshed record. A requested meeting is likewise not proof that attendance is compulsory.
The employee count tempts two opposite exaggerations. One is that Apple has identified 40 wrongdoers. The source does not say that. The other is that the letters are meaningless corporate theater. They can impose a real burden: recipients must understand what material to keep, separate personal and company records, protect confidential information and decide whether they need independent counsel. Scope matters even before a judge decides anything.
The missing letters prevent a more exact burden assessment. A narrow request tied to dates, projects and custodians differs from an open-ended demand covering years of personal communications. The refreshed report says documents and communications must be preserved and meetings were demanded, but it does not reproduce categories, deadlines, enforcement language or accommodations. Those terms would show whether Apple is protecting a defined case record or casting a wider net around employee movement.
Apple and OpenAI declined to comment to the Financial Times. OpenAI had said it took the allegations seriously but knew of no evidence that the complaint had merit, and said it had no interest in other companies' trade secrets. Apple claimed in court filings that disclosed evidence was the "tip of the iceberg." These are opposed positions in litigation, not findings of fact. [1]
The hardware rivalry gives the dispute commercial weight. OpenAI is working with former Apple design chief Jony Ive on devices after buying his design studio io, while the two companies had previously worked together to integrate OpenAI technology into Siri. Apple has since partnered with Google on newer assistant features, according to the report. The shifting relationship explains why device plans matter. It does not establish that any plan crossed an unlawful line. [1]
The lawsuit itself reportedly names neither OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman nor Ive. The Financial Times said one named individual is a former top Apple device designer who now leads OpenAI hardware. That roster must stay exact. A large alumni population can make employee movement look like a corporate migration, but employment at a competitor is not misappropriation.
Evidence will have to establish a chain that the letters merely protect. Which documents were created at Apple? What information qualified as a trade secret? Who had lawful access? What was taken or communicated, when, and to whom? Did OpenAI use it in a product or plan? Preservation keeps those questions answerable. It cannot answer them by itself.
OpenAI's planned device adds another reason to resist premature conclusions. The report describes an expected portable, screenless home gadget using microphones and cameras, while saying the company did not expect to ship it in 2026 even before the lawsuit. A design plan is not a released product, and a lawsuit is not evidence that the schedule changed. [1]
The labor question sits beside the property question. Silicon Valley depends on employees carrying skills between firms while leaving protected secrets behind. If every alumni contact is described as suspect, mobility itself becomes evidence. If every preservation demand is described as intimidation, a company loses a lawful means of protecting potentially relevant records. The distinction lies in the letters' scope, the recipients' status and the court's supervision.
No verified X post was recovered, so the paper will not pretend that online verdicts establish either mass theft or an attack on workers. Financial Times coverage supplies a count, a direction to preserve, meeting demands and the existing complaint. It also preserves OpenAI's denial. [1]
The next stage belongs to the docket and the documents. A court may define discovery, issue a protective order or decide what evidence supports the complaint. Until then, Apple has expanded the perimeter of preservation around its lawsuit. It has not converted 40 former employees into defendants or letters into proof.
-- THEO KAPLAN, San Francisco