Apple sues Jon Prosser over iOS 26 leaks — Prosser disputes court portrayal

New details have emerged in the legal battle between Apple and tech YouTuber Jon Prosser. Apple sued Prosser and video maker Michael Ramacciotti in summer 2025 over alleged leaks related to iOS 26. In October, Apple asked a US federal court for a default judgment against Prosser; he has now responded and disputes the characterizations made in the court filings.

The public back-and-forth highlights tensions between tech companies trying to protect unreleased products and independent journalists, leakers and content creators who publish early information. Legal action over leaks raises complex questions about source confidentiality, journalistic protections and corporate secrecy.

Key points

• Apple filed suit in summer 2025 against Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti related to alleged leaks about iOS 26.
• In October, Apple requested a default judgment against Prosser — a move typically sought when a defendant does not respond; Prosser has since submitted a rebuttal disputing parts of the record.
• The dispute underscores legal and ethical tensions around pre-release information, reporting, and the responsibilities of publishers and platforms.

Why this matters

High-profile legal actions can chill reporting and leak-based coverage, but companies argue they need to protect intellectual property and competitive advantage. Courts will weigh evidence, procedural rules and whether defendants were properly served or provided an opportunity to respond.

What to watch next

• Whether the court grants Apple’s request for default judgment or considers Prosser’s response on the merits.
• Any additional filings that clarify the alleged leak sources and the extent of claimed damages.
• Broader implications for how tech leaks are reported and whether platforms or creators face increased legal exposure.

For readers following tech leaks and the tension between secrecy and reporting: this case will be important to watch for its procedural outcomes and potential precedent.

Discussion: Do you think companies should sue leakers and channels that publish leaked information — or does that threaten press freedom and transparency? What balance should courts strike?