Jon Prosser has filed a formal response to Apple’s lawsuit over the iOS 26 leaks. In the filing with U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Prosser admits to viewing unreleased iOS features during a FaceTime call with Michael Ramacciotti but denies knowledge of conspiracy, knowledge that the iPhone belonged to Apple engineer Ethan Lipnik, or that the information constituted trade secrets. His core defense shifts responsibility to Ramacciotti, framing the leaks as unsolicited and independent of any coordination.
According to the court document obtained by MacRumors, Prosser’s attorney contends that Ramacciotti’s decision to display iOS 26 features on the development iPhone was not induced by Prosser, making Ramacciotti “completely responsible” for any disclosure of trade secrets. This contradicts Apple’s original complaint, filed in July 2025, which alleged that Prosser and Ramacciotti had coordinated a scheme involving financial incentives, location tracking, and passcode acquisition to access Lipnik’s phone. Prosser’s filing suggests instead that he was a passive recipient of information, comparing himself to a news organization reporting on leaked exclusives.
The response does concede significant facts that support Apple’s case. Prosser admits participating in and recording a FaceTime video call with Ramacciotti in which iOS 26 features were displayed on a development device, and acknowledges sharing a portion of YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti after publication of videos featuring those leaked details. He explicitly states that this revenue-sharing arrangement was intended to “retain exclusive communication with Ramacciotti.” However, Prosser claims that once he learned how Ramacciotti had acquired the information, he immediately disconnected communication with him, presenting this as evidence of good faith.
Prosser’s path to this filing has been legally turbulent. He originally missed his court-imposed deadline to respond to Apple’s complaint, leading to a default judgment entered against him in October 2025. That default would have allowed Apple to proceed without Prosser’s formal participation or ability to contest allegations. Last month, U.S. District Judge James Donato granted Prosser’s motion to set aside the default and provided a second opportunity to file a response. Prosser did not retain legal counsel until April 14, 2026, nearly nine months after Apple’s initial filing, which accounts for much of the procedural delay.
The timeline also reveals significant non-compliance with discovery requests. A joint status report filed in April 2026 documented that Prosser had failed to comply fully with Apple’s document and deposition subpoenas, which were served on February 3. While Prosser provided some responsive materials, he either partially or entirely ignored other requests, prompting Apple to seek a court order to compel production. The most recent filing covers developments since February 2026 and indicates ongoing friction between the parties over document disclosure.
Prosser’s response seeks dismissal of Apple’s complaint with prejudice, meaning Apple would be permanently barred from refiling the same claims. He also requests that the court award him attorneys’ fees and costs and grant a jury trial on all issues eligible for jury determination. These requests suggest he intends to force Apple to prove its allegations rather than accept a settlement or default. The defense strategy appears to hinge on technical denials, the argument that he received information without inducing its disclosure, and the assertion that paying Ramacciotti for exclusive access does not equate to knowingly conspiring to steal trade secrets.
Apple’s original complaint alleged that Ramacciotti, with Prosser’s knowledge and financial incentive, accessed Lipnik’s development iPhone by obtaining his passcode and using location tracking to determine when he would be absent. Prosser then allegedly used screen capture tools to record the FaceTime call and created re-rendered versions of iOS 26’s interface elements, including the Liquid Glass design overhaul. Those renderings appeared in videos published to Front Page Tech months before Apple unveiled iOS 26 in June 2025. Prosser’s current filing does not directly address whether he knew Lipnik’s identity or the passcode-and-tracking allegations, instead focusing narrowly on denying conspiracy and knowledge that the information was proprietary.
The case now moves toward discovery completion and potential summary judgment motions. Whether a jury will accept Prosser’s characterization of himself as a reporter receiving leaked information, or Apple’s framing of coordinated theft and deliberate concealment, is the unresolved factual question. His admission to recording the call and paying for exclusive access to Ramacciotti’s information creates significant legal exposure, even if he can establish that he did not orchestrate the initial theft of Lipnik’s device. The outcome will likely set precedent for how aggressively Apple pursues future leakers and whether tech YouTubers can claim the same journalistic protections as traditional news outlets.
