After receiving a second opportunity to formally address Apple’s lawsuit, Jon Prosser has filed his response, contesting the company’s claims regarding the acquisition and public release of details about the Liquid Glass redesign. Here’s an in-depth look at the case.
A Bit of Background
Recently, U.S. District Judge James Donato allowed Jon Prosser to set aside the default judgment that had been entered against him, giving him another chance to respond to Apple’s allegations. The default was initially entered due to Prosser’s failure to meet several response deadlines concerning the leak of the Liquid Glass redesign. This meant he couldn’t contest Apple’s allegations formally, and the lawsuit would continue without his input.
This situation contrasts with that of co-defendant Michael Ramacciotti, who reportedly accessed the development iPhone of former Apple employee Ethan Lipnik without his knowledge. Allegedly, Ramacciotti learned the device’s passcode and shared its contents with Prosser during a FaceTime call, showcasing a development version of iOS 26.
Prosser later published two videos featuring recreated versions of the interface and app redesigns. Following Apple’s iOS 26 announcement, the company sued both Ramacciotti and Prosser, accusing them of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
While Ramacciotti quickly engaged with the legal process, Prosser missed deadlines but argued that he had been actively communicating with Apple. Despite this, the court entered a default against him at Apple’s request. Prosser eventually retained legal counsel, agreed to produce outstanding discovery, and collaborated with Apple to request the default be set aside. Judge Donato granted this request, allowing the case to proceed with Prosser’s participation.
Prosser Responds
In his recent court filing, Prosser challenges several points in Apple’s complaint, particularly the assertion that he was involved in a conspiracy to harm Apple.
From the filing:
Prosser denies conspiring to breach Apple’s employee’s development iPhone to obtain secrets and refutes any involvement in a conspiracy or coordinated scheme alleged by Apple. The document states that Prosser did not agree to anything, such as paying Ramacciotti, before the actions of others and that any payments were made post-factum.
The document acknowledges Prosser’s participation in a FaceTime call with Ramacciotti, during which iOS 26 details were disclosed. However, Prosser claims ignorance regarding the ownership of the iPhone and whether iOS 19 was unreleased.
Regarding payments, the document clarifies that Prosser shared a portion of YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti post-publication to maintain exclusive communication but ceased all contact upon learning how Ramacciotti acquired the information.
Prosser’s videos are framed as reporting, akin to how news organizations handle exclusive information. The filing argues that Ramacciotti independently disclosed Apple’s alleged trade secrets, absolving Prosser of responsibility.
Additionally, Prosser’s response disputes Apple’s claims of damages, labeling them speculative, and asserts that Apple failed to mitigate losses. Prosser requests the court dismiss the complaint with prejudice, award attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant a jury trial for all eligible issues.
For a complete view of Prosser’s response, you can read it here.
What’s your take on Jon Prosser’s answer? Let us know in the comments.
Worth Checking Out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“`
