Prominent leaker Jon Prosser filed his formal response today to Apple's lawsuit, flatly denying he participated in any conspiracy to steal the company's trade secrets. The document, submitted to the U.S. District Court, places full responsibility for the leak squarely on co-defendant Michael Ramacciotti.
A second chance after default
This response comes after Judge James Donato granted Prosser's request to set aside the default judgment entered against him. Prosser had missed several deadlines to respond to Apple's complaint regarding the leak of the Liquid Glass redesign for iOS 26. The default would have prevented him from formally contesting the allegations, but a joint agreement between the parties allowed the case to reopen. This situation mirrors other tech industry legal battles, such as when Mark Zuckerberg told Meta employees that AI agents are not progressing as quickly as hoped, highlighting the compliance challenges large companies face.
Sponsored Protocol
Apple's allegations and Prosser's defense
According to Apple's complaint, Ramacciotti obtained the passcode of a development iPhone belonging to former Apple employee Ethan Lipnik while Lipnik was away, and then showed the device to Prosser during a FaceTime call. Prosser subsequently published two videos featuring recreations of the iOS 26 interface changes. In his response, Prosser denies planning or participating in a conspiracy to harm Apple. He claims he did not know the iPhone belonged to Lipnik, nor that iOS 19 was an unreleased version. The document states that "Prosser did not agree to anything in advance" and that "any payments were after the fact of the alleged theft."
Sponsored Protocol
Payments and relationship with Ramacciotti
Prosser admits sharing a portion of YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti after the videos' publication to maintain exclusive communication. However, once he learned how Ramacciotti obtained the information, Prosser says he cut off all contact. The defense argues that revenue sharing does not constitute an advance agreement to steal secrets. This pattern of shared responsibility echoes the aftermath of the Claude Fable 5 shutdown, which pushed two-thirds of enterprises to diversify AI models, showing how companies seek to mitigate legal and operational risks.
Sponsored Protocol
Claim for damages and relief sought
Prosser's answer disputes that Apple suffered any actual damages, calling the alleged losses speculative and claiming Apple failed to mitigate them. Prosser asks the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and award him attorneys' fees and costs. The defense likens his actions to those of a news organization reporting on information received. According to Wikipedia, trade secret protection requires proof of an unlawful agreement. This case could have significant implications for the rights of journalists and leakers.
