Jon Prosser responds to Apple lawsuit by blaming the other guy

YouTuber Jon Prosser filed a formal response in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 2, 2026, denying he conspired to steal trade secrets from Apple. Prosser claims co-defendant Michael Ramacciotti is “completely responsible” for the leak of unreleased software later known as iOS 26.

The Dispute Over the Liquid Glass Leak

Photo: MacTech.com

The legal battle centers on the misappropriation of trade secrets regarding a major interface revamp. According to 9to5Mac, the leak involved the Liquid Glass redesign, which Apple eventually unveiled at WWDC 2025 as part of the iOS 26 operating system. Apple’s original lawsuit, filed in July 2025, alleged that Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti engaged in a coordinated scheme to break into a development iPhone belonging to former Apple software engineer Ethan Lipnik. The company claims the duo accessed this device to profit from details about what was then referred to as “iOS 19.” The fallout for the employees was immediate. MacRumors reported that Apple fired Lipnik after an anonymous tipster revealed the information had been sourced from his device.

Prosser’s Defense and the Role of Michael Ramacciotti

Photo: MacRumors

In his formal rebuttal, Prosser denies any “conspiracy or coordinated scheme” intended to injure Apple. While he admits to recording a FaceTime call where he was shown features of the unreleased software, he argues that the act of disclosure was not induced by him. “Ramacciotti’s act of displaying the features was not induced by Prosser and, as such, Ramacciotti is completely responsible for the disclosure of Apple’s alleged trade secrets, if any.” Jon Prosser’s attorney, via AppleInsider Prosser further claims he had no knowledge that the iPhone in question belonged to Lipnik, nor did he know that Ramacciotti was present in Lipnik’s apartment. According to AppleInsider, Prosser asserts that once he discovered how the proprietary information was actually acquired, he cut off all communication with Ramacciotti. The defense emphasizes that Ramacciotti is the party who should indemnify Prosser for any harm caused by the litigation.

Financial Arrangements and YouTube Revenue

A critical point of contention is the money exchanged between the two defendants. Apple alleges the pair planned to access the device after Prosser learned Ramacciotti needed money. However, Prosser’s legal team disputes the timing and nature of these payments. Prosser admits to sharing a portion of the advertising revenue from his YouTube videos with Ramacciotti, but specifies that these payments occurred after the publication of the videos. According to the court documents, this was done specifically to secure exclusive communication. The financial stakes for Prosser’s channel, Front Page Tech, involve a mix of advertising and direct support. As MacTech.com noted in related coverage, the channel’s income is bolstered by Patreon support, with pricing tiers ranging from $2 to $10 a month.

Procedural Delays and Legal Contradictions

Photo: 9to5Mac

The road to this formal response was marked by significant delays. For months, Prosser ignored court deadlines, leading a clerk to enter a default against him. This would have effectively allowed the case to proceed without his participation. Prosser eventually retained counsel in April 2026 and agreed to a deposition in June. The Verge reported that both Prosser and Apple jointly asked the judge to set aside the default entry to ensure the most efficient path forward for the case. However, the legal filing itself contains notable inconsistencies and errors. MacRumors highlighted several typos, including a paragraph that erroneously referred to “Prosser Michael Ramacciotti.” More substantively, the filing contains contradictory claims regarding the software’s status:

One section states Prosser “has not [sic] knowledge” if iOS 19 was unreleased.

A later section explicitly states “Prosser admits that the information was unreleased software.”

Comparing Defendant Strategies

The two defendants have taken starkly different approaches to the litigation. While Prosser spent nearly a year avoiding formal responses, Ramacciotti opted for cooperation. Defendant Legal Strategy Cooperation Status Michael Ramacciotti Cooperating since October 2025; provided emails, computers, and archives. High Jon Prosser Initially ignored deadlines; recently filed rebuttal blaming co-defendant. Low/Recent Ramacciotti’s lawyers have argued that their client did not fully appreciate the value or the nature of the information he shared during the FaceTime calls. Apple has not yet publicly responded to Prosser’s latest filing. Prosser has requested a jury trial for all triable issues. The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.