Apple's iOS 26 leak lawsuit against Jon Prosser bogs down in disputes over discovery, depositions and trade secret claims
Apple is still waiting on YouTube revenue data it asked Jon Prosser for over three months ago, a joint filing in its iOS 26 leak lawsuit says. Both defendants are resisting more discovery, so the 15-month-old case is still gathering evidence about a redesign Apple has already shipped.
The Product Desk
What happened
- Apple wants Michael Ramacciotti to revise his written interrogatory answers and sit for a second deposition, citing inconsistencies with Prosser's testimony.
- Ramacciotti asked Judge James Donato for an October conference, then a 30-day deadline for Apple to either dismiss its claims against him or commit to trial.
- Prosser's lawyer says Prosser has met the discovery terms agreed when his default was lifted, and that Apple asks for more after each production.
- If Donato declines the conference request, the parties plan to file their next joint status report on December 2.
Why it matters
- Who has to decide decision If Donato grants the request, Apple gets about a month to choose between dropping a defendant who has largely cooperated and taking him to trial.
- What it limits constraint With the redesign already shipped, the injunction Apple seeks guards less, and more of its case rests on proving what Prosser earned from the leaks.
- Who's exposed exposure Apple's requests bring a leaker's channel revenue, analytics and third-party contacts within the scope of discovery once a leak turns into a lawsuit.
Next story · Product · 2d ago
OpenAI faces a "highly likely" injunction in Apple's trade secrets caseConfirmed4 publishers
The leak Apple is suing over came through a FaceTime call. Apple says Michael Ramacciotti improperly got into a development iPhone belonging to one of its employees and used the call to show Jon Prosser unreleased iOS features running on it [11]. The employee was later fired [11]. In his July 2 response to the suit, Prosser admitted he was on the call [19]. He denied any coordinated scheme, and denied that what he saw amounted to trade secrets [19].
Apple filed in July 2025, soon after announcing iOS 26, over videos in which Prosser showed parts of the release, including the Liquid Glass redesign [10]. The October joint status report [1] comes about 15 months later [20]. A good share of that time went to procedure. The clerk entered a default after Prosser missed the deadline to answer, a characterization he disputes, and the court set it aside eight months later [12]. Apple wrote in the new report that it "continues to await his production of certain additional documents that it requested over three months ago," among them communications with third parties Prosser named in his deposition [2].
The suit is pitched as protecting secrets. Apple wants damages and an injunction against further disclosure [13]. Prosser's side argues that "[i]t appears that the Trade Secrets at issue are no longer trade secrets and are in the public domain" [7]. His lawyer points to the release of iOS 26 and macOS 26, questions whether some items were ever secret given earlier third-party disclosures, and says Apple's written descriptions lack corresponding images [8]. Apple disputes that its disclosure is deficient and says it is willing to discuss it [15].
The work actually under way in discovery is about money and coordination. Apple says the YouTube revenue reports and analytics bear on Prosser's alleged financial gain and on how its information was obtained and shared [3]. It also says Prosser's testimony and his Signal exchanges with Ramacciotti suggest the two coordinated for profit, contradicting Ramacciotti's denial of a conspiracy [16].
Ramacciotti answered the complaint and has largely cooperated with discovery [18]. Distancing himself from Prosser's defense, his lawyer says he is "unwilling to be drawn into it" [17]. He will sit for a second deposition once Apple provides "a roadmap to resolution of its claims against him, including what more, if anything, Apple needs from him" [5].
The record does not show Apple slipping against a timetable of its own. Neither account of the filing describes a trial date, and Ramacciotti is still asking Apple to commit to one [6].
For whoever runs a pre-release program, I'd sort what goes onto test devices by two tests: whether it stays secret after launch, and whether the remedy you would rely on can arrive before launch. Material that passes the first test can still justify a slow lawsuit. A visual redesign fails it once shipped, and Apple has released the update with Liquid Glass [14]. This case fails the second test, still in discovery about 15 months after filing [20]. When both answers are no, the protection that counts is the one Apple says failed here: who can access an employee's development iPhone, and whether its screen can be shown on a FaceTime call [11].
What to watch
- Whether Prosser hands over the YouTube revenue reports and analytics, the records Apple needs to put a figure on his alleged gain.
- Whether the court accepts that features shipped in iOS 26 and macOS 26 no longer qualify as trade secrets, which would narrow the injunction claim.
- Whether Apple spells out what it still needs from Ramacciotti, the condition he has set for a second deposition.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence72
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap+5
- Incentives60
- Confidence70
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Apple, Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti filed a joint status report to Judge James Donato, made public in October 2026, in which they are at odds over who is responsible for delays in the trade secret lawsuit.
- [2]
Apple says it "continues to await his production of certain additional documents that it requested over three months ago. These include revenue reports and data analytics for his YouTube channels and relevant communications with third parties that he identified during his deposition."
- [3]
The materials Apple requested from Prosser concern his alleged financial gain and how Apple's confidential information was obtained and shared.
- [4]
Apple wants Ramacciotti to update his interrogatory responses and sit for another deposition to address what it describes as "inconsistencies between his and Mr. Prosser's testimony."
- [5]
Ramacciotti says he will sit for another deposition once Apple provides "a roadmap to resolution of its claims against him, including what more, if anything, Apple needs from him."
- [6]
Ramacciotti asked Judge James Donato for an October status conference at which Apple would explain what further evidence it needs, followed by a deadline within 30 days for Apple to dismiss its claims against him or commit to trial.
- [7]
Prosser argues that "[i]t appears that the Trade Secrets at issue are no longer trade secrets and are in the public domain."
- [8]
Prosser's attorney argues Apple's identified trade secrets are now public following the release of iOS 26 and macOS 26, questions whether some were ever secret given earlier third-party disclosures, and says Apple's written descriptions lack corresponding images, making its claims difficult to assess.
- [9]
If Judge Donato does not grant Ramacciotti's request for a status conference, the parties propose filing another joint status report on December 2.
- [10]
Soon after announcing iOS 26, Apple filed a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in July 2025 against Prosser and Ramacciotti over Prosser's videos leaking aspects of the system, including the Liquid Glass visual revamp.
- [11]
Apple said Ramacciotti improperly accessed the development iPhone of an employee, who was later fired over the incident, and held a FaceTime call with Prosser to show him unreleased iOS features running on the device.
- [12]
The clerk entered a default after Prosser failed to respond to Apple's complaint by the deadline; Prosser disputed the characterization that he ignored the case; eight months later the court set the default aside.
- [13]
Apple is seeking damages and an injunction against further disclosure of its trade secrets.
- [14]
Apple has released the iOS update with Liquid Glass.
- [15]
Apple disputes that its trade secret disclosure is deficient and says it is willing to discuss it with the defendants' lawyers.
- [16]
Apple says Prosser's deposition testimony and his Signal exchanges with Ramacciotti suggest the pair coordinated to obtain and disclose confidential information for financial gain, contradicting Ramacciotti's denial of a conspiracy.
- [17]
Ramacciotti's lawyer says he is "unwilling to be drawn into it," referring to Prosser's defense.
- [18]
Ramacciotti responded to Apple's complaint and has largely cooperated with the company's discovery requests, court documents show.
- [19]
In his July 2 response to the lawsuit, Prosser admitted participating in a FaceTime call during which Ramacciotti showed him features running on the development device, and denied participating in a coordinated scheme or that the information he viewed constituted trade secrets.
- [20]
About 15 months passed between Apple filing the lawsuit in July 2025 and the October 2026 joint status report.
- [21]
Prosser's lawyer says he has already fulfilled the discovery obligations agreed to when the parties sought to set aside the default against him, and that Apple keeps requesting more documents each time records are produced.
Sources
2 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- 9to5mac.comApple, Prosser, and Ramacciotti trade blame over delays in trade secret lawsuit
1 article · October 8, 2026
- macrumors.comLeaker Jon Prosser Pushes Back as Apple Seeks His YouTube Data
1 article · October 8, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- Trade Secret Litigation in Aerospace
- Apple product leaks
Entities
- Apple
- Michael Ramacciotti
- Liquid Glass