OpenAI Cuts Ties With Mixpanel After Nov 8 Breach Exposes API User Data
AI-generated Image (Credit: Jacky Lee)
OpenAI has ended its relationship with third-party analytics provider Mixpanel after a security incident exposed limited personal information linked to some users of its application programming interface (API). The breach, detected in early November, underscores how dependencies on external vendors can widen the attack surface for fast-growing artificial intelligence platforms.
According to OpenAI, the incident was confined to Mixpanel’s systems and did not involve unauthorised access to OpenAI’s own infrastructure or model data. Mixpanel, a San Francisco-based company founded in 2009, offers event-tracking and user-behaviour analytics for web and mobile applications. OpenAI had embedded Mixpanel’s JavaScript on platform.openai.com, its developer portal, to understand usage patterns and improve API-based services.
How The Incident Unfolded
On 8 November, Mixpanel’s security operations team detected a targeted SMS-phishing (“smishing”) campaign against an employee account and activated its incident-response procedures. The following day, the company confirmed that an attacker had gained unauthorised access to part of its environment and exported a dataset containing customer-identifiable information and analytics logs.
Mixpanel notified OpenAI on 9 November that it was investigating the incident and, on 25 November, provided a copy of the affected dataset. OpenAI says it reviewed the data and then terminated its use of Mixpanel across production services, while also starting a broader security review of its vendor ecosystem.
OpenAI began directly notifying affected organisations, administrators and users on 27 November. The company has not disclosed how many accounts were involved, describing the number only as “limited”, and says anyone who has not received a notice was not impacted.
What Data Was Exposed
The dataset removed from Mixpanel’s environment contained user-profile and telemetry information associated with platform.openai.com, including:
Name listed on the API account
Email address associated with the API account
Approximate location inferred from the browser (city, state, country)
Browser and operating system details
Referring websites
Organisation or user IDs tied to the API account
OpenAI and Mixpanel both state that the incident did not involve:
Chat histories or prompt/response content
API requests or usage data
Passwords, authentication or session tokens
API keys or other credentials
Payment information, including card numbers
Government-issued identification numbers
Everyday users of ChatGPT and OpenAI’s other consumer-facing products were not affected, as the Mixpanel integration was limited to the API developer platform.
OpenAI says that so far it has found no evidence of impact on systems or data outside Mixpanel’s environment but is continuing to monitor for signs of misuse.
Mixpanel’s Response
In a public update, Mixpanel said it had contained and eradicated the unauthorised access and taken a series of remediation steps: revoking active sessions, resetting employee passwords, rotating exposed credentials, blocking attacker IP addresses and bringing in external forensic specialists.
The company’s chief executive officer, Jen Taylor, said Mixpanel is working with affected customers and law-enforcement authorities and has implemented additional controls aimed at detecting and blocking similar attacks in future.
Third-party Dependencies in AI Ecosystems
The incident throws a spotlight on how AI providers rely on external vendors for non-core functions such as analytics, logging and monitoring. OpenAI, one of the world’s highest-valued AI companies and closely partnered with Microsoft, powers applications across sectors from healthcare to finance via its API. Developers often share metadata with such services to optimise performance and track adoption.
Mixpanel’s role in this architecture was typical: its code captured frontend events and telemetry, but did not have access to prompts, model outputs or other backend data. Nonetheless, as AI platforms scale, these integrations extend the number of systems that hold user-linked information. Research on recent data-breach trends has highlighted how sensitive telemetry is increasingly routed through vendor ecosystems, which can amplify the impact when a supplier is compromised.
European regulators have already questioned whether certain analytics practices comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), particularly around “data minimisation” — the principle that organisations should collect only information strictly necessary for a given purpose. In coverage of the Mixpanel incident, security researchers have suggested that including emails and approximate locations in analytics datasets may go beyond what some privacy frameworks consider essential for basic product metrics.
Separately, OpenAI continues to face legal scrutiny over training data. A lawsuit filed by The New York Times in December 2023 alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft unlawfully used copyrighted material to train large language models. While unrelated to the Mixpanel breach, such cases add to wider debates about how AI companies handle and govern data.
Timeline and Industry Reaction
From detection to full data-sharing, roughly two and a half weeks elapsed between Mixpanel spotting the smishing campaign and delivering the exported dataset to OpenAI for analysis. Security specialists note that while this timetable is not unusually slow for complex forensic work, it does highlight how dependent customers are on timely disclosures from vendors to assess their own risk.
OpenAI’s decision to terminate its use of Mixpanel and launch expanded audits of other suppliers has been broadly welcomed by security practitioners as a strong signal that third-party partners must meet higher standards. Commentators in the API and cloud-security sector say the move underscores a growing expectation that vendors will provide clear assurances on incident-response capabilities and access controls.
Security experts also warn that, even without passwords or API keys, the exposed data could be useful for targeted phishing and social-engineering attempts. Names, email addresses, browser fingerprints and organisation identifiers can be combined to craft convincing fake notifications, for example purporting to be quota warnings or security alerts from OpenAI. Analysts note that AI ecosystems increasingly depend on chains of third-party services, making any weak link in that chain a potential entry point for attackers.
Regulatory Angles and Compliance Pressure
For organisations using OpenAI’s API, the incident raises obligations under a patchwork of privacy and cybersecurity rules. In the European Union, controllers must assess whether the analytics data qualifies as personal data under GDPR and, if so, whether local breach-notification thresholds are met. Previous decisions by some EU data-protection authorities on web-analytics tools suggest that regulators are paying close attention to cross-border data transfers and the scope of tracking.
India’s new Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified in mid-November, require prompt reporting of significant breaches to the Data Protection Board and impose duties on organisations to ensure that processors and sub-processors implement “reasonable security safeguards”. That framework could apply where Indian developers’ details were included in the compromised dataset.
In the United States, there is still no comprehensive federal privacy statute, but the Federal Trade Commission has signalled that it may treat poor third-party oversight as an “unfair or deceptive” practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, particularly in cases where companies make strong public claims about security.
Comparisons with Other Supply-chain Breaches
The OpenAI–Mixpanel episode fits a broader pattern in which compromises at cloud or SaaS suppliers ripple out to multiple customers. In 2024, a major breach of Snowflake-hosted environments exposed data from firms including Ticketmaster, Santander and AT&T, after attackers used previously stolen credentials — often without multi-factor authentication — to access customer instances and extort victims.
Password-manager LastPass likewise suffered a series of incidents in 2022 in which a developer’s machine and a third-party cloud storage service were compromised, allowing attackers to steal source code, internal system secrets and eventually encrypted customer vault data. Subsequent analyses have treated the case as a cautionary example of how a single compromised endpoint in a vendor’s environment can have far-reaching consequences.
These examples reinforce a common lesson: AI and cloud services are rarely self-contained. They depend on layers of contractors, analytics tools and infrastructure providers, each of which can become a point of failure if not rigorously secured and monitored.
What Users and Organisations Can Do
For developers and companies using OpenAI’s API, the immediate practical risk stems from possible phishing or social-engineering campaigns targeting the exposed contact details and metadata. Security professionals and OpenAI alike recommend taking steps such as:
Treating unsolicited messages claiming to be from OpenAI with caution, especially if they contain links or request credentials.
Verifying that any communication about account security or billing genuinely originates from an official OpenAI domain.
Enabling multi-factor authentication on OpenAI accounts and related identity providers.
Using strong, unique passwords stored in a reputable password manager.
Reviewing internal processes for managing API keys and access permissions.
For the wider AI industry, the Mixpanel incident is likely to add momentum to calls for stricter vendor-risk management, more transparent data-mapping of where user information flows and, in some cases, a shift towards in-house analytics or “zero-trust” architectures that minimise how much information third parties can see.
OpenAI’s handling of the case, terminating the vendor relationship, disclosing the incident publicly and warning users about phishing, appears, at this stage, to have contained the impact to a narrow slice of API-related metadata. But the episode serves as a reminder that, as AI services become embedded in critical workflows, the security of “supporting” tools like analytics platforms can be as important as the safety of the models themselves.
TheDayAfterAI News
We are a leading AI-focused digital news platform, combining AI-generated reporting with human editorial oversight. By aggregating and synthesizing the latest developments in AI — spanning innovation, technology, ethics, policy and business — we deliver timely, accurate and thought-provoking content.