{"id":69441,"date":"2026-06-23T01:02:55","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T23:02:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=69441"},"modified":"2026-06-23T01:03:41","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T23:03:41","slug":"apple-vs-prosser-judge-overturns-default-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-gegen-prosser-richter-hebt-versaeumnisurteil-auf","title":{"rendered":"Apple vs. Prosser: Judge overturns default judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the legal battle over the leak of the Liquid Glass design, Jon Prosser has been given a second chance. A US federal judge has overturned the default judgment against the YouTuber, meaning Prosser can now formally defend himself against Apple's accusations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal dispute between Apple and the YouTuber has been dragging on for almost a year. It began with a lawsuit filed by Apple against Jon Prosser over leaked iOS 26 details<\/a> that surfaced before the official unveiling of the new design. Now the case has taken a surprising turn: A procedural hurdle that had previously prevented Prosser from substantively defending himself has been removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple vs. Jon Prosser: What the case is about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple filed the lawsuit in July 2025 \u2013 in addition to Prosser, it also names Michael Ramacciotti as a defendant. According to the company, Ramacciotti gained access to the developer iPhone of then-Apple employee Ethan Lipnik while Lipnik was away from home. The device contained an early version of iOS 26 with several unreleased features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple accuses Prosser of using the information obtained in this way to publish videos showing elements of the redesign later known as Liquid Glass. These are allegations by Apple on which the court has not yet made a final ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From default judgment to second chance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The proceedings so far have been unfavorable for Prosser. After he failed to respond to Apple's lawsuit within the allotted time, the company obtained a default judgment against him \u2013 preventing him from formally denying the allegations. Prosser later denied the claim that he had ignored the proceedings and stated that he had been in active communication with Apple from the outset. The contrast with his co-defendant was striking: while Prosser delayed cooperation for a considerable time<\/a>, Ramacciotti was significantly more proactive in the gathering of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The turning point came with a change of lawyers. Shortly after being retained in April, Prosser's lawyer announced his intention to challenge the default judgment and present "evidence for a sound defense against Apple's claims." On June 9, both sides filed a joint settlement. Apple did not object to the dismissal and, given Prosser's new legal representation and his commitment to promptly provide documentation for the taking of evidence, described it as the most efficient way to move the proceedings forward without further delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the judge ordered<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The presiding U.S. District Judge James Donato granted the request and suspended the default judgment. Prosser thus has ten days from the date of the order to file a formal response to Apple's lawsuit. He is also required to submit the requested documents for evidentiary purposes and be available for questioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One curious detail of the order<\/a> is that it is dated June 22nd, even though two of the deadlines mentioned within it had already passed by that time. Presumably, the document was signed without updating these passages. This doesn't change the central consequence, however \u2013 Prosser now has the opportunity to defend himself on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple: A case with far-reaching implications for the leaker scene<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Beyond this specific case, the proceedings have a significance that extends far into the Apple community. For Apple, it's not just about the specific leaks, but about sending a clear signal to everyone who obtains internal information through similar channels. The fact that the dispute is now entering a substantive phase is therefore likely to be followed with particular interest \u2013 not least by others who regularly disseminate unpublished Apple details. (Image: Shutterstock \/ sirtravelalot)<\/p>\n\n\n\n