After getting a second chance to formally respond to Apple’s lawsuit, Jon Prosser filed his answer today, disputing the company’s account of how he obtained and published details about the Liquid Glass revamp. Here are the details.
A few days ago, U.S. District Judge James Donato granted Jon Prosser’s request to set aside the default entered against him and gave him another chance to respond to Apple’s complaint.
The default had been entered against him after he missed several deadlines to respond to Apple’s complaint over the leak of the Liquid Glass redesign, which essentially meant that he could no longer formally contest the company’s allegations, and the lawsuit would proceed without his participation.
That was a very different situation from that of the lawsuit’s other co-defendant, Michael Ramacciotti, who had been staying at the home of now-former Apple employee Ethan Lipnik, whose development iPhone became the source of the leak.
According to Apple’s complaint, Ramacciotti learned the device’s passcode and accessed it without Lipnik’s knowledge while he was away. He then joined a FaceTime call with Prosser and showed him a development version of what would eventually become iOS 26.
Prosser would go on to publish two different videos featuring recreated versions of the leaked interface changes and app redesigns.
After Apple announced iOS 26, the company filed a federal lawsuit against Ramacciotti and Prosser, accusing them of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
While Ramacciotti quickly responded and began cooperating with the discovery process, Prosser missed multiple deadlines and failed to formally answer the complaint. However, he disputed the characterization that he ignored the case, saying he had been “in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages” of the lawsuit.
Despite his claims, Apple asked the court to enter a default against him, and the court granted the request.
Prosser eventually retained an attorney and, after agreeing to produce the outstanding discovery, worked with Apple to jointly ask the court to set aside the default. The two sides argued that allowing him to participate would be the most efficient way to move the case forward.
Judge James Donato granted the request, bringing us to today.
In a document filed today, Prosser disputes several aspects of Apple’s complaint, chief among them the allegation that “he planned or participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme […] for the purpose of injuring Apple.
From the filing:
Prosser denies he conspired to break into Apple’s employee’s development iPhone to take Apple’s secrets, and denies that he participated in any such conspiracy or coordinated scheme alleged by Apple.
According to the document, Prosser “did not agree to anything (such as paying Ramacciotti) in advance of the communications and actions of others.”
The document adds that “any payments by Prosser were after the fact of the alleged theft.”
Prosser’s answer concedes that he participated and recorded a FaceTime call with Ramacciotti where details of what became iOS 26 were revealed, but claims that Prosser didn’t know the iPhone belonged to Lipnick, nor “if iOS 19 was in fact ‘unreleased’”.
As for the payment, the document states that “Prosser admits sharing a portion of the YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti after publication of Prosser videos in order to retain exclusive communication with Ramacciotti,” but adds that “once Prosser learned how Ramacciotti acquired the proprietary information, he disconnected communication with Ramacciotti.”
It also frames Prosser’s three videos as “reporting on information given to him, as any news organization would report on exclusives.”
Finally, the answer states that “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.”
As for Apple’s requested relief, the document disputes that the company suffered any damages, argues that any alleged losses are speculative, and claims Apple failed to mitigate them.
Prosser asks the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice (meaning Apple would be barred from filing the same claims again), award him attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant a jury trial on all eligible issues.
You can read his full response below:
What’s your take on Jon Prosser’s answer? Let us know in the comments.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:
Marcus Mendes is a Brazilian tech podcaster and journalist who has been closely following Apple since the mid-2000s.
He began covering Apple news in Brazilian media in 2012 and later broadened his focus to the wider tech industry, hosting a daily podcast for seven years.
Leave a Reply