Apple has initiated legal proceedings against YouTuber Jon Prosser, alleging the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information pertaining to its forthcoming iOS 26 operating system. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, accuses Prosser of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by disseminating details about unreleased software features.
Allegations and Legal Claims
Central to Apple’s complaint is the assertion that Prosser, in collaboration with associate Michael Ramacciotti, orchestrated a scheme to access a development iPhone belonging to Apple employee Ethan Lipnik. According to the lawsuit, Ramacciotti, a friend of Lipnik, exploited their relationship to gain unauthorized access to the device. Apple alleges that Ramacciotti used location tracking to determine when Lipnik would be away from his residence, obtained his passcode, and accessed the development iPhone without permission. During this unauthorized access, Ramacciotti reportedly initiated a FaceTime call with Prosser, showcasing the unreleased iOS 26 interface. Prosser is accused of recording this call and subsequently using the footage to create and publish content on his YouTube channel, thereby profiting from the leaked information.
Apple contends that this breach caused significant harm to the company and its employees, who are dedicated to maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary software developments. The company emphasizes that the development iPhone contained a substantial amount of additional trade secret information that had not been publicly disclosed, raising concerns about the extent of the information that Prosser and Ramacciotti may have obtained.
Sequence of Events Leading to the Leak
The alleged unauthorized access and subsequent leaks unfolded over several months:
– January 2025: Prosser released a video titled Here’s your very first look at iOS 19, showcasing a redesigned Camera app. At that time, the upcoming operating system was rumored to be called iOS 19.
– March 2025: Another video titled Introducing iOS 19 | Exclusive First Look was published, revealing an overhauled Messages app with round navigation buttons and rounded keyboard corners.
– April 2025: Prosser uploaded This video is the biggest iOS leak ever | iOS 19 Early Preview, providing a comprehensive look at the new Liquid Glass design, characterized by glass-like translucent elements and pill-shaped tabs.
These videos generated significant attention within the tech community, as they provided detailed insights into Apple’s unreleased software features. While some discrepancies existed between Prosser’s presentations and the final iOS 26 design unveiled at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in June 2025, many of the leaked elements closely resembled the official release.
Apple’s Response and Legal Actions
Apple became aware of the unauthorized disclosures through an anonymous email received in April 2025. The company conducted an internal investigation, which led to the termination of Ethan Lipnik’s employment for failing to adhere to company policies designed to protect development devices and unreleased software. Apple alleges that Lipnik did not report the breach upon learning about it, further compromising the company’s security protocols.
In its legal filing, Apple seeks several remedies:
– Injunctive Relief: A court order preventing Prosser and Ramacciotti from further disclosing or profiting from Apple’s confidential information.
– Damages: Compensation for the misappropriation of trade secrets and the harm caused to Apple’s competitive advantage.
– Destruction of Materials: The return or destruction of all trade secret materials in the possession of Prosser and Ramacciotti.
Apple’s lawsuit underscores the company’s commitment to safeguarding its intellectual property and maintaining the confidentiality of its product developments. The company argues that unauthorized leaks not only harm its competitive position but also undermine the efforts of its employees who work diligently to create innovative products.
Jon Prosser’s Response
In response to the lawsuit, Jon Prosser has publicly denied the allegations. In a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Prosser asserted:
> For the record: This is not how the situation played out on my end. Luckily have receipts for that. I did not ‘plot’ to access anyone’s phone. I did not have any passwords. I was unaware of how the information was obtained. Looking forward to speaking with Apple on this.
Prosser’s denial suggests that he disputes the sequence of events as presented by Apple and is prepared to provide evidence supporting his version of the story. The outcome of this legal battle may have significant implications for the tech industry, particularly concerning the dissemination of confidential information and the responsibilities of content creators in handling sensitive material.
Broader Implications
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing tension between technology companies and individuals who leak or report on unreleased products. While leaks can generate excitement and anticipation among consumers, they can also disrupt a company’s marketing strategies, provide competitors with early insights, and potentially lead to financial losses. Apple’s aggressive legal action against Prosser may serve as a deterrent to others who might consider disclosing confidential information without authorization.
The case also raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of content creators and journalists in the tech space. Balancing the public’s interest in upcoming products with the need to respect corporate confidentiality is a complex issue. The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
Conclusion
Apple’s lawsuit against Jon Prosser over the alleged iOS 26 leaks underscores the company’s determination to protect its trade secrets and maintain control over its product announcements. As the legal proceedings unfold, the tech community will be watching closely to see how the court addresses the issues of unauthorized access, trade secret misappropriation, and the responsibilities of content creators. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of ethical considerations in reporting on unreleased products and the potential consequences of violating corporate confidentiality agreements.
