After a second chance to formally respond to Apple's lawsuit, Jon Prosser filed his response today, disputing the company's version of how it obtained and published details about the Liquid Glass.
See also: Apple: Is it reducing production of the iPhone 17 series?
A few days ago, U.S. District Judge James Donato granted Jon Prosser's request to dismiss the default judgment filed against him and gave him another chance to respond to Apple's complaint. The default judgment was filed against him after he missed several deadlines to respond to Apple's complaint regarding the leaked Liquid Glass design, which essentially meant he could no longer formally challenge the company's allegations and the lawsuit would proceed without his participation.
This was a very different situation than that of the other co-defendant in the lawsuit, Michael Ramacciotti, who was staying at the home of former Apple employee Ethan Lipnik, whose development iPhone became the source of the leak. According to Apple’s complaint, Ramacciotti learned the device’s passcode and gained access without Lipnik’s knowledge while he was away. He then joined a FaceTime call with Prosser and showed him a development version of iOS 26.
Prosser went on to publish two different videos showing recreated versions of the interface changes and app redesigns. After Apple announced iOS 26, the company filed a federal lawsuit against Ramacciotti and Prosser, accusing them of misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of the Computer Abuse and Fraud Act.
While Ramacciotti responded quickly and began cooperating with the discovery process, Prosser missed several deadlines and failed to formally respond to the complaint. However, he disputed the characterization that he ignored the case, saying that he had been “actively communicating with Apple from the early stages” of the lawsuit. Despite his claims, Apple asked the court to enter a default judgment against him, and the court granted the request.
See also: iOS 27: All the new features of Apple Maps
Prosser eventually hired a lawyer and, after agreeing to provide the pending discovery, worked with Apple to jointly ask the court to overturn the default. Both sides argued that his participation would be the most effective way to move the case forward. Judge James Donato granted the request, bringing us to today.
In a document filed today, Prosser disputes several aspects of Apple’s complaint, most notably the allegation that he “planned or participated in any conspiracy or concerted plan […] with the intent to harm Apple.” Prosser denies that he conspired to hack an Apple employee’s development iPhone to obtain Apple secrets and denies that he participated in any such conspiracy or concerted plan that Apple alleges.
According to the document, Prosser “did not agree to anything (such as paying Ramacciotti) prior to the communications and actions of others.” The document adds that “any payment by Prosser was made after the fact of the alleged theft.” Prosser’s response admits to participating in and recording a FaceTime call with Ramacciotti where details of iOS 26 were revealed, but claims that Prosser was unaware that the iPhone belonged to Lipnick, nor “whether iOS 19 was indeed ‘unreleased.’”
Regarding the payment, the document states that “Prosser admits that he shared a portion of YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti after Prosser’s videos were published in order to maintain exclusive communication with Ramacciotti,” but adds that “once Prosser learned how Ramacciotti obtained the proprietary information, he ceased communication with Ramacciotti.” It also presents Prosser’s three videos as “reporting on information provided to him, as any news organization would report on an exclusive.”
See also: Former Google engineer convicted of stealing trade secrets
Finally, the response states that “Ramacciotti’s act of displaying the features was not caused by Prosser and, therefore, Ramacciotti is fully responsible for revealing the alleged Apple trade secrets, if any.”
