Apple has filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, accusing Jon Prosser of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Here are the full details.
If you follow the rumor mill, you probably remember how Joe Prosser had been leaking iOS 26 (or rather, iOS 19, at the time) since January. First, he leaked a reconstruction of the Camera app, then he published a couple of videos that showed reconstructed glimpses of what actually became the Liquid Glass overhaul.
And while some details differed from what Apple ultimately announced, likely because the material he had access to was still a work in progress, the leaks were directionally accurate. Now, Apple has revealed how he got this information, and what it wants the courts to do about it.
Apple got tipped about the leak in April
In the lawsuit (via MacRumors), the company retells how it got tipped that Michael Ramacciotti (another defendant in the lawsuit) had broken into the Development iPhone of an Apple employee called Ethan Lipnik, while staying at his house:
“According to Mr. Ramacciotti’s message, while staying at Mr. Lipnik’s home, Mr. Ramacciotti used location tracking to determine when Mr. Lipnik would be gone for an extended period, acquired his passcode, and broke into his Development iPhone, which Mr. Lipnik had failed to properly secure according to Apple’s policies. As he detailed in the audio message, Mr. Ramacciotti made a video call to Mr. Prosser and “showed iOS” on the Development iPhone. He demonstrated several features and applications, disclosing details of the unreleased iOS 19 operating system.
(…)
According to Mr. Ramacciotti, Mr. Prosser proposed the scheme and promised to”find out a way for [Mr. Ramacciotti] to get payment” if Mr. Ramacciotti would provide access to Mr. Lipnik’s Development iPhone so Mr. Prosser could steal and profit from Apple’s confidential information. Mr. Ramacciotti acknowledged that Mr. Prosser recorded the video call with screen capture tools. Mr. Prosser took videos of the trade secrets on the Development iPhone, kept them on his own device, and disseminated those recordings to others. He shared the recordings with at least one person who reported back to Mr. Lipnik that he recognized Mr. Lipnik’s apartment in the recording. Ultimately, Mr. Prosser profited off Apple’s trade secrets by, at least, sharing them in multiple videos on his business’s YouTube channel, from which he generates ad revenue.
Apple goes on to detail the lengths it goes to in order to protect its trade secrets, and how confidentiality plays a big part in its development process. The company also says that although it fired Lipnik, he was also kept in the dark about what had happened until he learned about it “through others, who claimed to have seen Mr. Lipnik’s apartment in a video recording from Mr. Prosser.”
Apple also claims that it doesn’t know whether Prosser has more confidential material that he has yet to share, as “the Development iPhone additionally contained other unanounced design elements that remain confidential”.
What Apple is asking the court
In a nutshell, Apple is asking for a jury trial, which would allow a jury to decide on injunctive and punitive damages if the company wins the case.
In the document, Apple lists the following requests:
- Judgment in Apple’s favor and against Defendants on all causes of action alleged herein;
- Injunctive relief as the Court finds necessary and appropriate;
- Damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
- Punitive damages based on Defendants’ willful and malicious misappropriation of
- trade secrets;
- An order directing Defendants not to make use of or disclose Apple’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information to third parties without its written consent; and to return or assist Apple in locating and destroying any such information in their possession, custody, or control;
- Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate as applicable, as an element of damages that Apple has suffered as a result of Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful acts;
- Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred; and
- Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Prosser responds
On X, Prosser disputed Apple’s version of events, and briefly shared his own account of how he obtained the iOS 26 interface:
It is very likely that more information will come to light in the next few days, and we will follow the story and report back as it unfolds.
What’s your take on all this? Share your thoughts in the comments.
AirPods deals on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
