Apple's iOS 26 leak lawsuit against Jon Prosser bogs down in disputes over discovery, depositions and trade secret claims

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].