|
On June 30 2025, I served Apple, City of Santa, EPA, and the property owner notice of an incoming EPA Citizen Suit under RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, and EPCRA -- as well as a public nuisance claim -- about Apple's illegal semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California.
Read the Notice here.
0 Comments
On June 26 2025, US EPA served Apple with a notice of RCRA enforcement action re: Apple's fab at 3250 Scott Blvd, in Santa Clara, California. Read the notice here.    Today, I filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their dismissal of my appeal against Apple. This isn't just about my case—it's about protecting whistleblowers, AI safety, and fundamental due process rights that affect everyone. What Happened: A Procedural Trap The Ninth Circuit dismissed my appeal in May, claiming it lacked jurisdiction because the case wasn't "final." But they missed something crucial: federal law gives courts mandatory jurisdiction over appeals from orders denying injunctive relief, even if the case is still ongoing. Here's what the district court did:
This created an impossible situation: the court dismissed my claim for not addressing certain issues (even though I did address them), then refused to let me try to address those exact issues again. That's not how justice is supposed to work. Why This Matters Beyond My Case While I was fighting this procedural maze, Congress was paying attention to the underlying issues: New Federal Laws Vindicate My Claims
California Recognizes the Crisis In 2025, California passed comprehensive AI whistleblower protections after recognizing that employees represent "the last line of defense when corporate incentives prioritize growth, profit, or competitive advantage over public welfare." The state's analysis found that AI companies use "broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements" to prevent employees from reporting safety concerns—creating dangerous information asymmetries between companies and regulators. The Bigger Picture: Biometric Privacy Rights My advocacy directly prompted California's first comprehensive biometric privacy bill (SB 1189) in 2022. After I contacted my state senator about Apple's mass collection of biometric data through the "Gobbler" study, that same senator introduced legislation to protect Californians from exactly these practices. The bill would have prohibited:
This legislative response proves my case identified a genuine public policy crisis, not just a personal employment dispute. The Legal Arguments My motion for reconsideration makes several key points: 1. Mandatory Jurisdiction Exists Federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)) requires courts to hear appeals from orders denying injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit simply ignored this jurisdictional basis. 2. Due Process Violations You can't strike someone's legal arguments then claim they "waived" them. The district court created an impossible procedural trap that violates fundamental fairness. 3. Ongoing Irreparable Harm Apple still possesses intimate images obtained through illegal data collection and continues using them in litigation. This ongoing harm is exactly what immediate appellate review was designed to address. 4. National Importance Congress recognized these issues are so important they required emergency federal legislation. California found the same issues threaten public welfare statewide. What's at Stake This case isn't just about holding one company accountable. It's about:
Why I Keep Fighting As someone who worked on machine learning ethics at Apple, I saw firsthand how the company prioritized data collection over employee privacy and safety. When I tried to report these concerns, I faced retaliation that continues today. The federal investigations I'm supporting involve potential threats to millions of people. When tech companies can silence whistleblowers through procedural gamesmanship, everyone loses. Recent events prove I was right to sound the alarm:
The Road Ahead The Ninth Circuit now has a choice: follow federal law requiring them to hear appeals from injunctive relief denials, or continue enabling procedural traps that silence whistleblowers reporting on matters of national importance. I'm not asking for special treatment — just basic due process and application of existing law. Every whistleblower, every pro se litigant, and everyone who cares about AI safety should want courts to follow their own rules fairly. The motion is comprehensive, citing extensive evidence of procedural violations and demonstrating why immediate appellate review serves the public interest. It's time for the courts to prioritize justice over case management convenience. Documents
The fight for AI safety and whistleblower protection continues. Every voice matters, and every person who stands up for transparency and accountability helps build a safer future for everyone. - Ashley 
Apple's "ANswer" to My Complaint it Illegally Fired MeOn May 19, 2025, the Court granted my motion to strike multiple defenses from Apple’s Answer to my Fifth Amended Complaint in the Gjovik v Apple civil litigation. (You can read my earlier post here.) The Court found that many of Apple’s defenses — Apple's arguments for why Apple should not be held liable for the harm it caused me — were legally deficient. This is litigation, so it is not enough to simply claim a termination was lawful or justified; a defendant must identify:
The Court struck a number of Apple’s defenses, including:
The Court directed Apple to file an amended Answer within 14 days — by June 3 — and required that each defense include concrete allegations supported by actual facts. Apple’s Amended Answer (Filed June 2, 2025)Apple filed a revised Answer one day early. However, the changes are mostly superficial. The newly inserted language is generic, formulaic, and legally insufficient. Example inserted language (repeated verbatim across defenses): “Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory and/or non-retaliatory business reasons… Plaintiff disclosed confidential product-related information… and failed to cooperate… during the Apple investigatory process.” These additions include no names, no dates, no documents, no policy citations, and no context — only broad, conclusory language with no factual grounding. Even in its revised “failure to mitigate damages” defense, Apple simply states that it is “currently unaware” of whether I sought other employment and is preserving the defense pending discovery. This defies the Court’s instruction to include some factual basis to justify asserting the defense. You can view the Microsoft Word "diff" of the first and second version here (and excerpt below). Legal Analysis (Crash Loop)Apple’s filing fails to comply with the Court’s order. Courts require more than legal conclusions — especially after being told exactly what’s missing. Apple appears to have simply copied the Court’s language back into the pleading without supplying the required facts. The Court’s Prior Instructions:
Yet, Apple’s response simply recites: “Plaintiff disclosed confidential product-related information… failed to cooperate… violated Apple policies…” That is not compliance — it is deflection. Further, Apple also:
The Court granted leave to amend to allow Apple to defend itself — not to recycle prior language or make new baseless accusations. This failure to comply not only leaves Apple exposed to another Rule 12(f) motion to strike, but risks a judicial finding of bad faith or procedural abuse. Consequences for AppleIf the Court strikes these defenses again:
This narrows the case. It tightens discovery. It makes the damages math simpler. And it removes one of the few remaining litigation levers. And the risk for Apple, if it refuses to resolve this, only compounds. Behind the ScenesThis amended Answer does not reflect a good-faith attempt to cure pleading deficiencies. It reflects a deliberate retreat from factual litigation altogether. Apple was given 14 days to revise its defenses after the Court struck them for being conclusory and unsupported. The Court explicitly instructed Apple to plead concrete facts — names, dates, events, documents. Instead, Apple submitted a filing that merely repeats legal conclusions, substitutes the Court’s own illustrative language as if it were factual pleading, and copy-pastes boilerplate text across multiple defenses — likely assembled in under 30 minutes. This is not a legal defense strategy. It is a procedural maneuver — unusually cautious, and concurrently reckless. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity for aggressive litigation. It filed nine motions to dismiss, repeatedly sought sanctions, and briefed complex jurisdictional and preemption issues. Since 2023, Apple’s litigation teams have fought my detailed allegations of environmental violations, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and antitrust violations. It is represented by multiple top-tier law firms with national reputations, and its internal legal department rivals most federal agencies. To suggest this filing reflects negligence or inexperience defies credibility. There is only one plausible explanation for this level of risk aversion: Apple did not want to tie itself to any factual narrative. More specifically, it appears Apple may have been preparing to plead “facts” derived through extrajudicial influence — and was ultimately forced to abandon that plan. In the days leading up to this filing, I raised concerns — through protected speech and formal agency communications — that Apple appeared to be interfering in parallel government proceedings, seemingly to engineer official findings to then cite in its civil Answer. I notified both government officials and the public (albeit cryptically) that if Apple exploited premature or coordinated agency action to shape its defense, it would face immediate and appropriate legal response from me. It is now especially notable that Apple’s Answer:
This last allegation is not just unsupported — it is reactive. It appears crafted to preemptively deflect from the very type of interference I warned about. This is not coincidence. It is confirmation. To underscore the point: Apple appeared to have coordinated with a major news outlet to publish a story reinforcing its planned defense narrative — timed to support a position in another proceeding. I became aware of this effort in real time. I contacted the outlet and, in precise legal terms, explained what Apple was doing: attempting to manipulate press coverage to manufacture evidentiary material. The article was pulled. It was never published. This isn’t the strategy of a company trying to win on the merits. It’s the strategy of a company trying to control the record — and failing. Containment is not a legal strategy. It’s reputational triage. And in litigation — where discovery, testimony, and trial timelines exist to surface the truth — triage almost always fails. Apple’s refusal to plead facts is now part of the evidentiary record. Its use of boilerplate in place of fact is part of the litigation history. If this Answer represents the collapse of a pre-fabricated narrative — forced to detour after exposure or internal panic — then what you’re seeing is not defense strategy: it’s collapse. -Ashley Diff of Apple's First Answer and Amended Answer:
The full Gjovik v Apple case Docket is here:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
||||
RSS Feed