Employment Law

Apple sued OpenAI and two former Apple employees on Friday, July 10, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging coordinated theft of trade secrets to accelerate OpenAI's consumer hardware development. The complaint names Chang Liu and Tang Tan as defendants and accuses OpenAI of orchestrating a campaign to recruit Apple staff and extract confidential project information, including technical drawings and component specifications. Apple alleges that Tan, while still employed there, used insider knowledge of confidential projects to extract proprietary information from job candidates during OpenAI interviews before his departure.

Apple filed a federal lawsuit on July 10, 2026, alleging that OpenAI and its chief hardware officer Tang Tan orchestrated a systematic campaign to steal confidential trade secrets related to unreleased Apple products. According to the complaint, OpenAI encouraged former Apple employees and job candidates to share components, drawings, and internal product information to accelerate OpenAI's own hardware development efforts.

On July 10, 2026, Apple filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California against OpenAI, former Apple executives Tang Tan and Chang Liu, and io Products, LLC, alleging a coordinated scheme to steal trade secrets and accelerate OpenAI's entry into consumer hardware. The complaint accuses OpenAI of systematically acquiring confidential Apple information—including product designs, manufacturing processes, and supply chain strategies for the iPhone, Apple Watch, and MacBook—to build competing AI devices.

Major law firms are moving beyond adopting AI tools to building proprietary systems designed to entrench their competitive position. Kirkland & Ellis announced a $500 million investment in a custom AI platform, while Fried Frank is embedding AI directly into its funds practice. This shift signals a departure from treating technology as a commodity—firms are now reorganizing core operations around AI capabilities and integrating partner expertise into these systems to create defensible competitive advantages.

Reed Smith LLP has established a dedicated artificial intelligence department combining lawyers, e-discovery specialists, and AI professionals to advise clients on legal, business, and technology issues related to AI. A Philadelphia-based partner will lead the new unit, formalizing what has been an expanding capability across the firm.

Apple sued OpenAI on July 10, 2026, in federal court in California, alleging the AI company systematically stole trade secrets to build competing consumer hardware and AI devices. The complaint names OpenAI's Chief Hardware Officer Tang Tan and two former Apple employees, accusing them of a coordinated scheme to recruit Apple staff and direct job candidates to bring proprietary components, prototypes, and engineering documents to interviews. Apple seeks damages, injunctions, and an order prohibiting OpenAI from using the stolen information.

A Tennessee federal judge has ordered Reaves Law Firm PLLC to pay $45,000 in attorney fees to Baker Donelson after the firm submitted court filings containing fabricated citations and fake quotations generated by artificial intelligence. Chief U.S. District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee found that Reaves Law violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by citing nonexistent cases and misquoting real ones.

Twenty-six current and former Meta employees filed a federal lawsuit Monday in the U.S. Northern District Court of California alleging the company used artificial intelligence systems to systematically target workers with disabilities or those on protected medical, parental, or family leave during its May 2024 mass layoff. The plaintiffs claim Meta replaced managerial discretion with AI-driven metrics—including productivity scores, keystroke monitoring, and AI token consumption data—to generate termination lists, effectively penalizing employees for approved absences. The complaint names specific tools including Metamate, Meta's internal AI assistant, and employee-built monitoring dashboards that allegedly recorded absences as "disengagement" and suppressed performance ratings. One plaintiff was terminated while on approved pre-birth leave; another alleges a manager discouraged medical leave by warning that leadership would "definitely" fire them if they took it.

Traci Tamiko Eto, former research director at Mayo Clinic, filed a federal lawsuit on July 6, 2026, alleging retaliation and wrongful termination after she raised concerns about AI safety failures and patient privacy violations. According to the complaint, Eto was demoted in July 2025, placed on involuntary medical leave, and fired in December 2025 when her position was eliminated in a reduction in force that reportedly affected only her role. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under the False Claims Act's retaliation provision, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Department of Justice announced the sentencing of two U.S. nationals for operating a multiyear scheme that deployed North Korean IT workers under stolen American identities to infiltrate over 100 U.S. companies. Kejia Wang, 42, and Zhenxing Wang, 39, used at least 80 fraudulent identities to secure remote positions across the corporate sector, generating more than $5 million in illicit revenue for the DPRK regime. The operation relied on "laptop farms"—physical U.S.-based facilities hosting computers that allowed overseas workers to bypass location-based security checks, making employers believe they were hiring domestically based remote staff.

An advisory article cataloging eight high-risk uses of AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude has highlighted the gap between widespread adoption and user safety guidance. The piece identifies specific domains where these large language models pose unacceptable risk: legal and compliance decisions, hiring or termination calls, medical diagnostics, and generation of final financial figures. The core problem is familiar—LLMs hallucinate statistics and present false information with unwarranted confidence—but the article emphasizes a secondary issue: AI providers themselves offer little guidance on what users should avoid, leaving organizations to independently identify pitfalls around data privacy, accuracy requirements, and inappropriate outputs.

A senior architect of Kirkland & Ellis's expansion is publicly arguing that artificial intelligence represents the legal profession's future rather than merely a back-office efficiency tool, according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal. The statement reflects a broader shift among elite law firms experimenting with AI to accelerate drafting, legal research, and high-volume document work.

The federal judiciary has established a clear constitutional prohibition on federal grant termination based on recipients' involvement with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. The Southern District of New York ruled in the ACLS case that the government's withdrawal of DEI-related humanities grants violated both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, characterizing the actions as "textbook examples" of unconstitutional discrimination. Courts in the Northern District of California and elsewhere have reached similar conclusions, blocking the Department of Justice and Department of Education from enforcing new DEI-related conditions on community policing grants and other federal funding.

New York legislators are advancing two bills that would impose distinct compliance obligations on businesses using artificial intelligence. Assembly Bill 3411B would require any user of generative AI systems to display a clear notice on the interface warning that outputs may be inaccurate. Assembly Bill 9581B targets employers and businesses using AI in hiring and workforce management, mandating annual reports to the New York Department of Labor detailing AI's impact on employment—including estimates of displaced workers, reduced hours, and unfilled positions. Businesses that fail to submit the required report by March 1 face civil penalties of up to $500 per day.

Major technology companies have reversed course on artificial intelligence's labor impact. Where executives spent the past year warning of mass job displacement, they now promote AI as a productivity multiplier that allows companies to accomplish more with existing workforces. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, acknowledged in May 2026 that earlier predictions about AI-driven job losses were "quite mistaken," despite the underlying technology performing as expected. Dario Amodei, who previously warned that AI could eliminate half of entry-level positions, now frames the issue as a corporate choice between workforce reduction or increased output. Tech firms are simultaneously deploying internal "AI champions" to drive adoption among resistant employees.

Bracewell LLP has hired Dina McLeod as a partner in its New York government enforcement and investigations practice. McLeod, who spent 11 years at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, most recently served as chief of the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. In that role, she oversaw investigations and prosecutions involving white-collar crime, cybercrime, AI-related fraud, cryptocurrency schemes, digital assets, money laundering, securities fraud, trade secrets theft, tax fraud, healthcare fraud, bankruptcy fraud, FCPA violations, and national security cyber cases.

At the 2026 Consumer Electronics Show, industry leaders and safety experts confronted an urgent problem: humanoid robots entering hospitals, homes, and factories are injuring people. Recent incidents involving Boston Dynamics' Atlas, Figure AI's Figure 3, 1X's Neo, and other platforms have exposed critical gaps in safety design. The machines' hard bodies, pinch points, and unpredictable movements in unstructured environments pose immediate physical risks that current protocols fail to address. The core issue is functional insufficiency—robots cannot reliably perceive and plan their actions in real-world conditions outside controlled labs.

In-house legal departments have become the primary drivers of AI adoption in corporate law, upending the assumption that BigLaw firms lead the transformation. This shift crystallized during the 2026 RFP and procurement cycles, where corporate clients explicitly demanded "AI discounts" and wrote measurable efficiency requirements into panel reviews and tenders. General Counsels at Fortune 500 companies are now dictating the pace and scope of AI integration rather than reacting to it.

Tech executives have reversed course on artificial intelligence's employment impact. After 78,557 tech layoffs in Q1 2026—nearly half explicitly attributed to AI automation—companies are acknowledging that promised productivity and financial gains have not materialized. Only 12% of CEOs report that AI successfully boosted revenue while lowering costs, and 95% of generative AI projects have failed to deliver expected returns. This reality has prompted a public softening of warnings about mass job displacement, a sharp departure from earlier alarmist predictions.