**Michael Ramacciotti Answers Apple’s Lawsuit in the Jon Prosser Matter**
After a series of extensions to deadlines, Michael Ramacciotti has provided his answer to Apple’s lawsuit regarding Jon Prosser’s YouTube recordings that reportedly disclosed confidential information related to Apple’s iOS. This article explores the context of the case, the claims made by Apple, and Ramacciotti’s rebuttal.
### A Brief Background
In July 2025, Apple filed a lawsuit against Jon Prosser, a well-known tech YouTuber, over two videos that disclosed specifics about the company’s Liquid Glass visual redesign. Apple alleges that these leaks were enabled by Michael Ramacciotti, who purportedly accessed a development iPhone owned by Ethan Lipnik, an Apple staff member. The firm contends that Prosser and Ramacciotti colluded to exploit Apple’s confidential data, with Prosser allegedly guaranteeing Ramacciotti compensation for his assistance.
While Ramacciotti requested extensions to reply to the lawsuit, Prosser failed to meet his deadline, leading to the court issuing a default judgment against him at Apple’s behest. In a statement to *The Verge*, Prosser asserted that he had been in touch with Apple throughout the case, notwithstanding the court’s decision.
### Ramacciotti’s Reply
In addressing Apple’s allegations, Ramacciotti refuted most of the assertions made by the tech corporation. He admitted to accessing Lipnik’s iPhone and having a FaceTime conversation with Prosser, during which he displayed certain iOS functionalities. Nonetheless, he categorically denied any suggestion of having colluded with Prosser, asserting that he did not organize or take part in any plot to leak information.
Ramacciotti’s response contained a significant acknowledgment: he received $650 from Prosser following the FaceTime call, but he stressed that there was no prior understanding regarding payment in return for information. His legal document read:
> “Defendant admits that he accessed Lipnik’s Apple Development iPhone and conducted a FaceTime call with Prosser and Prosser asked Defendant to show certain iOS features, but denies that he planned or participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme with Prosser to do so.”
Furthermore, Ramacciotti indicated that he was not aware that Prosser was recording their FaceTime discussion and did not fully recognize the sensitivity of the information being disclosed, particularly since Lipnik had previously shown him the new iOS features.
Curiously, throughout his reply, Ramacciotti referred to Prosser as the “defaulted defendant Jon Prosser,” seemingly trying to separate himself from Prosser despite their co-defendant status in the lawsuit.
For those interested, Ramacciotti’s full response can be viewed [here](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.452973/gov.uscourts.cand.452973.20.0.pdf).
### Conclusion
The legal confrontation involving Apple, Jon Prosser, and Michael Ramacciotti underscores the complexities surrounding intellectual property and the obligations of individuals who access confidential data. As the case progresses, it will be intriguing to observe how the court addresses these allegations and the ramifications for all involved parties.
