The US District Court for the Northern District of California has approved Apple’s motion to enter default against Jon Prosser in the lawsuit it initiated last July. Here’s what this entails.
### A Brief Summary
Earlier this year, YouTuber Jon Prosser released a few videos highlighting various features of what became the Liquid Design redesign launched in iOS 26.
In July, Apple initiated legal action against Prosser and another defendant named Michael Ramacciotti, charging them with misappropriating trade secrets and breaching the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act due to the leak.
Apple alleges that Ramacciotti accessed the Development iPhone of a former employee, Ethan Lipnik. Here’s Apple’s account of the timeline of the events:
As per Mr. Ramacciotti’s message, while at Mr. Lipnik’s residence, he utilized location tracking to ascertain periods when Mr. Lipnik would be away for a significant duration, obtained his passcode, and accessed his Development iPhone, which Mr. Lipnik had inadequately secured according to Apple’s standards. In the audio message, Mr. Ramacciotti connected via video call with Mr. Prosser and “displayed iOS” on the Development iPhone. He showcased several features and applications, revealing details about the unreleased iOS 19 operating system. Mr. Ramacciotti claims that Mr. Prosser devised the scheme and assured him he would “find a way for [Mr. Ramacciotti] to get payment” if he granted access to Mr. Lipnik’s Development iPhone so Mr. Prosser could steal and benefit from Apple’s proprietary information. Mr. Ramacciotti admitted that Mr. Prosser recorded the video call using screen capture tools. Mr. Prosser videotaped the trade secrets on the Development iPhone, stored them on his own device, and shared those recordings with others. He provided the recordings to at least one individual who informed Mr. Lipnik that he recognized Mr. Lipnik’s apartment in the footage. Ultimately, Mr. Prosser profited from Apple’s trade secrets by featuring them in several videos on his company’s YouTube channel, from which he earns advertising revenue.
In its complaint, Apple requests a jury trial and seeks injunctive relief, damages, and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, in addition to an order prohibiting Prosser from revealing Apple’s confidential information in the future.
Prosser promptly rejected Apple’s interpretation of the events and initially expressed that he was “looking forward to discussing this with Apple.”
### The Current Situation
After the deadline to respond to Apple’s complaint lapsed, Ramacciotti sought an extension, which the court granted, extending his deadline to October 17. However, Prosser never submitted a response.
On October 10, Apple petitioned the court to enter default against him, allowing the lawsuit to advance without Prosser’s involvement or defense. Last Friday, that request was granted.
It remains uncertain why Prosser or his legal representation has not responded to Apple’s complaint. Legally, Prosser can still petition the court to overturn the default, but only if he can demonstrate that his failure to respond was due to so-called excusable neglect, or another valid reason.
If that does not occur, the court will likely proceed toward a default judgment in favor of Apple. Nonetheless, since the lawsuit also pertains to Ramacciotti, the final judgment may be postponed until that aspect of the case is settled.
