Apple lawsuit without resistance: Prosser lets deadline pass Apfelpatient

Apple is taking legal action against tech YouTuber Jon Prosser. The lawsuit centers on allegations that he published confidential information about iOS. The lawsuit has far-reaching implications, as Apple is seeking not only damages but also an injunction. Now, the court has granted a motion for a default judgment against Prosser. The proceedings will continue without his participation.

A US federal court in California has awarded Apple a partial legal victory against Jon Prosser. The company filed a lawsuit against Prosser and another defendant, Michael Ramacciotti, in July.

The accusation: The two allegedly illegally obtained and published Apple's trade secrets. Prosser failed to respond to the lawsuit within the deadline – a default judgment was filed and has since been granted by the court.

Starting point of the lawsuit

In the spring, Prosser posted several videos on his YouTube channel showing new design elements of the so-called "Liquid Design" from a pre-release version of iOS 26. Apple suspected that this information came from an internal development device. According to the lawsuit, the trail led to Ethan Lipnik, a former Apple employee whose device was apparently not properly secured.

According to Apple's account, Ramacciotti monitored Lipnik's whereabouts using location tracking during a visit. As soon as Lipnik left the house, Ramacciotti gained access to Lipnik's development iPhone. He had previously obtained the passcode. The device was running an early version of iOS 26.

During this access, Ramacciotti allegedly connected Prosser via video call. Prosser allegedly recorded the screen and recorded the functions demonstrated. This content was later published in several YouTube videos. Apple accuses Prosser of having actively participated in acquiring the content. He allegedly promised Ramacciotti that he would find a way to pay him for it.

According to the lawsuit, Prosser wasn't just a passive recipient, but helped plan the entire process. An audio message exists in which Ramacciotti describes the events himself. He also allegedly confirmed that Prosser recorded the content and shared it with third parties. According to Apple, one of these people even recognized Lipnik's apartment in the recording.

Apple's demands

In the lawsuit, Apple is seeking, among other things, an injunction, compensatory damages, punitive damages of an unknown amount, and a permanent ban on Prosser from disclosing confidential Apple information. The company is also demanding a jury trial.

Prosser's reaction and course of the trial

After the lawsuit became known, Prosser publicly stated that he was looking forward to the dispute with Apple. However, there was no legal response. While co-defendant Ramacciotti requested an extension and was granted until October 17, Prosser let the deadline pass without responding.

Apple then filed a motion for default judgment against Prosser on October 10. The following Friday, October 18, this motion was granted. The court is thus proceeding with the lawsuit without Prosser's participation.

A default judgment means that the defendant has failed to present a defense. The proceedings are therefore conducted unilaterally. Prosser would still have the opportunity to file a motion to set aside the judgment—but only if he can prove that his failure to appear was due to excusable negligence or a valid reason.

Until that happens, the court can issue a final ruling in Apple's favor. Because Ramacciotti remains part of the proceedings, the decision on the entire case will likely be postponed until that part is also concluded.

Apple consistently uses legal leverage

At this time, there has been no explanation from Prosser as to why he hasn't filed a defense. His legal counsel has also not yet made any public statements. The case remains in motion, but the default judgment provides Apple with strong leverage.

Whether Prosser will pursue further legal action or accept the ruling remains to be seen. What is clear is that Apple consistently pursues legal action against potential breaches of confidential information protection – regardless of who is affected. (Image: Shutterstock / Sergii Figurnyi)