A majority of Americans support giving the public a direct ownership stake in the country’s largest artificial intelligence companies, reflecting growing concerns that the economic benefits of the AI boom are becoming concentrated among a handful of technology firms while workers bear the costs of job displacement.

A new national survey by research firm Verasight found that 69% of Americans support requiring AI companies to transfer 50% of their stock into a public sovereign wealth fund, an idea that has gained attention as the industry pours hundreds of billions of dollars into AI infrastructure while continuing to cut jobs.

The poll, conducted in June among 1,690 U.S. adults and published earlier this month, highlights rising public unease over how AI-generated wealth should be distributed. It comes amid a wave of technology sector layoffs, record corporate profits and mounting debate in Washington over whether AI’s economic gains should accrue primarily to shareholders or be shared more broadly across society.

The survey suggests that many Americans see AI not simply as another technological innovation but as a transformative industry whose benefits should be treated as a national asset.

Benjamin Leff, Chief Executive Officer of Verasight, said respondents broadly viewed an AI sovereign wealth fund as a mechanism for ensuring that the gains created by artificial intelligence extend beyond technology executives and investors.

“In the eyes of the public, AI Sovereign funds are seen as a tool to distribute the gains from the AI industry back to broader society,” he said.

The proposal reveals a growing policy discussion around “social ownership” of AI, with advocates arguing that because AI could fundamentally reshape labor markets and productivity, ordinary citizens should receive a direct financial stake in the industry’s success.

The findings come weeks after Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, legislation that would require the largest U.S. AI companies to transfer 50% of their equity into a publicly owned investment fund.

Under Sanders’ proposal, Americans would collectively own a substantial share of the country’s biggest AI developers, allowing the public to benefit financially as the companies grow.

Announcing the legislation last month, Sanders argued that AI should improve living standards rather than increase the wealth of technology billionaires.

“It would guarantee that the economic benefits generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer,” he said.

He also warned against allowing the future of artificial intelligence to be shaped solely by private corporations.

“The future of AI and the fate of humanity must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit,” the senator added.

The proposal is regarded as one of the most ambitious efforts yet to reshape ownership of the AI economy and would fundamentally alter the capital structure of America’s largest artificial intelligence companies if enacted.

Layoffs Fuel Public Frustration

The growing support for public ownership comes as technology companies continue to reduce headcount while simultaneously accelerating investment in AI infrastructure. Many of the industry’s largest firms have announced repeated rounds of layoffs over the past two years, even as they commit unprecedented sums to data centers, semiconductor procurement and AI model development.

That contrast has intensified workers’ concerns that artificial intelligence is increasingly replacing existing roles while creating fewer immediate employment opportunities than previous technological revolutions. The issue has become particularly sensitive as companies report stronger earnings, buoyed in part by productivity gains associated with AI adoption.

Goldman Sachs Sees Significant Labor Disruption

Economists continue to debate the long-term employment effects of artificial intelligence. According to a report published last month by Goldman Sachs, Senior Global Economist Joseph Briggs estimates that more than 9% of the U.S. labor force, equivalent to roughly 15 million workers, could lose their jobs during a decade-long transition driven by AI.

Briggs compared the expected disruption to previous periods of rapid technological transformation.

“This would be the type of automation and reallocation shock that we saw in the late ’90s and early 2000s and in other periods of significant technological change,” he said.

However, Goldman Sachs argues that the disruption is unlikely to be permanent.

According to the report, “these losses will prove temporary owing to his expectation that AI will create many new jobs over the long term even as it destroys existing ones.”

That assessment lends credence to a widely held view among economists that while AI will eliminate some occupations, it will also generate demand for entirely new categories of work that do not yet exist.

The concept of an AI sovereign wealth fund extends beyond redistributing corporate ownership.

According to research by Windfall Trust, such funds could play several strategic roles, including financing expensive AI infrastructure projects, investing directly in domestic AI companies, and ensuring that governments capture part of the economic value generated by artificial intelligence. Rather than relying solely on taxation, sovereign wealth funds would allow citizens to benefit directly through long-term equity ownership as AI companies grow.

The model mirrors how several resource-rich countries, including Norway, have used sovereign wealth funds to convert national assets into long-term public wealth.

Applied to AI, advocates argue that data, computing infrastructure, and technological innovation could become similarly valuable national assets.

Researchers caution, however, that sovereign wealth funds would face difficult trade-offs. Windfall Trust noted that governments could struggle to balance their responsibility to maximize financial returns with broader strategic objectives such as strengthening domestic AI capabilities and maintaining technological leadership.

The research firm warned: “There is also a tension between the financial mandate (maximize returns for citizens) and the strategic mandate (build national AI capacity, maintain influence over frontier systems), since these objectives can conflict when the best financial investment is a foreign AI company rather than a domestic one.”

Overall, support for an AI sovereign wealth fund suggests that many Americans are becoming more receptive to policies that spread AI-generated wealth more broadly, particularly as concerns grow over automation, job security and widening income inequality.

Apple’s explosive lawsuit accusing OpenAI of orchestrating a campaign to obtain its trade secrets has triggered intense debate across Silicon Valley, with legal experts, technology executives, investors and venture capitalists offering sharply different interpretations of what could become one of the most consequential intellectual property cases of the artificial intelligence era.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, goes beyond allegations of employee poaching. Apple accuses OpenAI of recruiting former Apple engineers, encouraging candidates to bring proprietary hardware components to interviews, exploiting confidential manufacturing relationships, and using confidential information to accelerate its entry into AI-powered consumer hardware.

OpenAI has denied the allegations.

“We have no interest in the secrets of other companies,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a brief statement on Friday. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.”

The legal battle comes at a pivotal moment for both companies. Apple is seeking to defend its hardware leadership as AI reshapes consumer electronics, while OpenAI is rapidly expanding beyond software following its acquisition of former Apple design chief Jony Ive’s startup, io, and ahead of a widely anticipated initial public offering.

Industry observers say the dispute extends far beyond the two companies, raising broader questions about how intellectual property can be protected in an era when AI companies are aggressively hiring engineering talent and investing billions of dollars to build the next generation of computing devices.

Trade Secrets, Not Hiring, Are Likely To Determine The Case

Among legal experts, there is broad agreement that Apple’s lawsuit will ultimately hinge less on OpenAI’s hiring practices than on whether it can prove specific acts of trade secret misappropriation.

Jean Gan, AI governance leader and director of legal, compliance and enterprise risk at Savills Singapore Group, said California law gives employees considerable freedom to move between companies.

“Look at how Apple pleaded this,” Gan wrote on LinkedIn. “California courts have largely rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine, and the state won’t enforce non-competes, so Apple can do nothing about the 400 former employees now at OpenAI.”

Instead, Gan said Apple carefully structured its complaint around alleged misconduct: “So every allegation rests on conduct: retained devices, unauthorized access, misused documents, coached evasion. In a jurisdiction where talent moves freely by design, trade secrets law is the only legal perimeter left around institutional knowledge, and Apple has pleaded squarely inside it.”

That distinction is significant because California has long encouraged employee mobility to foster innovation. Simply hiring engineers from competitors is generally lawful, but theft or misuse of confidential information is not.

Apple’s complaint alleges that one former engineer retained a company-issued laptop after leaving, exploited a security vulnerability to access Apple’s internal systems, downloaded confidential engineering documents, and assisted other departing employees in circumventing Apple’s exit security procedures.

If proven, those actions would strengthen Apple’s case far more than evidence of recruitment alone.

Supply Chain Becomes The Unexpected Battleground

One of the lawsuit’s most unusual allegations concerns Apple’s manufacturing ecosystem. According to the complaint, OpenAI allegedly persuaded a shared manufacturing supplier to reproduce a proprietary Apple metal-finishing process while falsely suggesting Apple had authorized the work.

Gan said that the allegation highlights an often-overlooked vulnerability in intellectual property protection.

“Apple alleges OpenAI had a manufacturing partner perform a proprietary Apple metal-finishing technique and misled that partner into believing Apple had consented. That leak ran through a shared supplier. No employee needed to carry anything out the door,” he said.

“Supply chains move trade secrets just as easily as departing staff do, and few confidentiality frameworks treat them with the same rigor.”

Apple’s History Suggests A Prolonged Legal Fight

Several industry analysts believe Apple is unlikely to seek a quick settlement. Paul Semenza, chair of the Engineering Management and Leadership Department at Santa Clara University, said the allegations suggest Apple views the dispute as a direct attack on its hardware business.

“Getting an existing Apple employee to take the risk of bringing parts to an interview seems more like a test of how desperate they are to work at OpenAI than anything else,” Semenza wrote.

He also argued that the alleged use of Apple’s supply chain represented an escalation.

“Targeting Apple’s supply chain is a declaration of war,” he said.

Semenza noted that Apple spent years litigating patent disputes with Samsung over smartphone technologies and industrial design.

“And given that Apple fought Samsung for years over rounded corners, it is hardly surprising to see Apple listing metal finishing as an example of IP theft,” he added.

Unlike the Samsung litigation, however, there is little opportunity for licensing agreements because OpenAI is entering an entirely new product category centered on AI hardware.

However, not everyone expressed sympathy for Apple. Business Insider technology columnist Alistair Barr argued that Apple itself has previously faced lawsuits alleging it recruited employees from competitors before developing rival products.

“Cue the tiny violins; someone may have stolen something from Apple,” Barr wrote. “It’s a sorry tale, but one the tech giant knows very well. Maybe too well.”

Barr noted that several companies have previously accused Apple of employing similar competitive tactics, illustrating how talent recruitment has long been a defining feature of Silicon Valley. However, the current lawsuit differs because Apple alleges not merely recruitment but the theft and misuse of confidential information.

A Dramatic Reversal of A Once-Promising Partnership

The lawsuit also marks a remarkable deterioration in relations between two companies that only recently collaborated. Apple integrated ChatGPT into its ecosystem as part of its AI strategy, making OpenAI one of its highest-profile partners.

Rohit Mittal, co-founder and CEO of Helium Ventures, said the dispute was unexpected.

“Did not have Apple suing OpenAI on my bingo card for this year,” he wrote. “They were the first to partner and integrate ChatGPT into their ecosystem. Crazy that Apple couldn’t resolve this amicably and had to sue.”

The timing proved especially striking because the complaint became public just as technology executives were departing the annual Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, one of Silicon Valley’s most influential gatherings.

Product executive Parker Ortolani summed up the awkward timing in a brief social media post.

“Well Sun Valley just got extra awkward,” he said.

Several commentators have argued that Apple’s aggressive legal strategy reflects concern over OpenAI’s ambitions in consumer hardware.

Stephen Robles, co-host of the Primary Tech podcast, questioned OpenAI’s public statement denying any interest in competitors’ intellectual property.

“‘We have no interest in other companies’ secrets,’ while hiring Jony Ive to make you a device rings pretty hollow,” he wrote.

Ive designed many of Apple’s most iconic products before leaving the company in 2019. OpenAI acquired his startup, io, in 2025, bringing the legendary designer into its effort to build AI-native consumer devices.

Peter Rojas, senior vice president at Mozilla, also believes the lawsuit reveals Apple’s strategic concerns.

“I don’t know how strong Apple’s claims are, but I doubt they would be this aggressive if they weren’t deeply concerned that OpenAI was planning on making a phone,” he said.

“I still think it’s a better move for OpenAI than some sort of AI wearable.”

If OpenAI launches an AI-centric smartphone or similar consumer device, it would represent one of the most direct competitive threats Apple has faced in more than a decade.

Apple’s case appears to be focused on individuals as much as OpenAI.

Technology analyst Max Weinbach observed that Apple’s complaint concentrates heavily on the actions of former Apple executives Chang Liu and Tang Tan.

“This really seems like the suit is against Liu and Tan personally and OAI by extension,” Weinbach wrote. “Apple seems to really be pushing Liu and Tan as the bad actors and OAI, because it owns IO, rather than OAI was asking them to do all of this stuff.”

Legal analysts say that distinction could become important because proving corporate liability often requires showing that company leadership knowingly benefited from or directed alleged misconduct.

OpenAI’s IPO At Risk?

The lawsuit also arrives as OpenAI prepares for a potential stock market listing. Broadcom Chief Technology Officer Paul Lembo suggested the litigation could complicate that process.

“Apple suing OpenAI for trade secret theft. Damn. Tim Cook is not Elon. He doesn’t play,” Lembo wrote. “Knowing this was imminent was another reason for OpenAI not to IPO.”

He added that while allegations involving former employees can be difficult to prove, Apple has a reputation for aggressively defending its intellectual property.

“I expect Apple to bring heavy lumber to the BBQ,” he said.

Venture capitalist Livia Judith Szabo argued that the case serves as a warning for startups seeking investment.

“The Apple vs. OpenAI lawsuit is a masterclass in partner-competitor risk for VCs and M&A professionals,” she wrote.

She noted that the complaint alleges trade secret theft, recruitment of more than 400 former Apple employees, and efforts to coach new hires on avoiding Apple’s security procedures.

“The lesson for founders raising serious capital: your IP and talent-transition protocols will get read line by line in diligence,” she added.

However, beyond the legal allegations, analysts say the case illustrates how competition in artificial intelligence is expanding beyond software models into hardware, manufacturing, supply chains and industrial design.

For decades, technology companies primarily competed over operating systems, chips, and smartphones. Today, AI companies are racing to develop integrated hardware capable of running increasingly sophisticated AI models, making experienced engineers and proprietary manufacturing processes strategic assets.