Reuters:

Apple on Monday asked a U.S. judge for a preliminary injunction barring two former employees ​and OpenAI from accessing, acquiring, using or disclosing alleged confidential information as it moves ahead with its trade secrets case. [...]

The iPhone maker also filed a concurrent motion on Monday seeking expedited discovery, including production of documents relating to the defendants’ alleged access ​of Apple’s proprietary and trade secret information. It asked the judge to order the two ​former Apple employees named in the lawsuit, Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan, to sit for depositions, along with OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng and an unnamed OpenAI employee who previously worked at ​Apple.

The request for expedited discovery and the depositions, I understand. Apple wants to move fast, and they want to get depositions (especially, I’m sure, with Tan) now. The preliminary injunction request, though, I think Reuters is underplaying here.

I suggest reading Apple’s actual motion, not the news coverage. From Apple’s motion:

OpenAI, its people, and partners should not be permitted to develop, release, and benefit from products using and developed with the benefit of Apple’s trade secrets.

Sam Tabahriti, reporting for Reuters:

Britain’s competition regulator ​on Tuesday proposed allowing app developers to steer users to alternative payment options outside Apple and Alphabet’s Google app stores to cut fees and boost competition. The Competition and Markets Authority said the proposals would remove restrictions that currently prevent UK developers from directing users to off-platform payment options, which are banned by Apple and restricted by Google.

The watchdog said any fees charged by two of the world’s largest technology companies ​for allowing such “steering” would need to be fair and reasonable, and should be lower than current app store commissions, with ​savings passed on to consumers or reinvested in innovation.

How does one mandate that the savings be passed on to consumers? You may recall that last year Apple published a study — that it commissioned itself — suggesting otherwise. I wrote in December:

This all comes back to the argument that Apple’s App Store commission inflates prices. A recent Apple-funded (and Apple-promoted) study suggests this is not true — that with lower commissions mandated by the DMA, prices paid by consumers stayed the same and the difference went to the developers. That’s good if you’re a developer, but it’s not the argument being made by these consumer advocate groups.

That said, I pointed out just the other day that Tiimo, a to-do app that Apple just named as the iPhone app of the year in the 2025 App Awards, charges about 20 percent less for subscriptions on its website compared to its in-app subscriptions. An Apple-funded, Apple-promoted study showing that the App Store’s commissions don’t raise prices ought to be taken with a few grains of salt.

Requiring Apple to allow apps to steer users to the web to make payments is, I’ve long argued, sensible regulation. I’ve also long argued that Apple has been obstinate in disallowing it. If in-app payments — through Apple’s system — can’t compete with out-of-app payments on the web, something is wrong with IAP. But it’s wrong to assume that payments outside IAP will result in lower prices and better policies for users. IAP subscriptions are easy to cancel and listed all in one place. Web subscriptions are often notoriously difficult to cancel and manage.

Back to Reuters:

The CMA said it was also considering requiring Apple to open up access to its near-field communication technology, which is used for contactless payments, potentially allowing developers to offer payment services within their own iOS apps. This could enable UK fintech companies to build alternatives to ​Apple’s wallet, including account-to-account payments and emerging technologies such as digital currencies, the CMA said.

Even more so than opening up third-party in-app payment processing, this seems like something only “fintech” companies are asking for. For users I think the only result will be a loss of interoperability and increase in confusion. Users get one Wallet app today, with all their credit, debit, and loyalty cards, and all their tickets for things like events and travel. A scenario where each credit card company, airline, and event/ticketing company can mandate the installation of their own app, with access to the iPhone’s NFC, does not strike me as a good outcome.

Munsif Vengattil, Aditya Kalra, and Stephen Nellis, reporting for Reuters:

Sensitive lists of components and suppliers, ​and photos of Apple’s upcoming iPhone 18 Pro models are part of files posted on the dark web by the ransomware group that stole data from the U.S. firm’s Indian supplier Tata Electronics, according to documents and a source.

The exposure threatens the carefully negotiated business of building the iPhone, which Apple assembles from a thicket of suppliers worldwide. It could also upset Apple and its relationship with Tata given most of the supplier arrangements are fiercely protected by Apple, and could also hand rivals, counterfeiters and its own vendors a ​view of who makes what. [...]

Apple ​considers this detail sensitive and is concerned about the documents being shared on the dark web as they relate to unreleased models, according to the person familiar with the matter. The data maps suppliers to iPhone parts, which Apple does not disclose in its public database of suppliers, the person added.

In all, the documents detail hundreds of parts to be on the upcoming iPhone 18 Pro models. The records also show where Apple draws a part from several suppliers and where it relies on just a few, laying bare both its bargaining leverage and its vulnerabilities.

I’m going to say that describing Apple as “concerned” about this data breach might be the biggest euphemism I’ve heard this year. I’m sure they’re furious. Someone at Apple is responsible for putting this trust in Tata, and executives at Tata are surely panicked that they’ve lost future business with Apple.