The dispute over the leaked iOS 26 details has now turned to money: Apple is demanding Jon Prosser's revenue reports for his YouTube channel. Prosser considers this excessive – and his co-defendant wants nothing more to do with the dispute between the two.
Since July 2025, Apple has been suing Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti, alleging that the two gained access to unreleased software via a development iPhone. In August, Apple reported that Prosser's lawyer had not responded for a month. On October 7, all parties submitted the next status report as previously announced.
The joint status report in case 3:25-cv-06043-JD before the Federal District Court in San Francisco shows three parties with three different objectives. Apple wants more documents, Prosser doesn't want to provide any more, and Ramacciotti wants to expedite the proceedings.
Key Facts at a Glance
- Apple has requested YouTube revenue reports, channel statistics, and information about Prosser's communication with third parties – a request made more than three months ago.
- Prosser considers his duties fulfilled and argues that the alleged trade secrets have been public since the launch of iOS 26.
- Ramacciotti is demanding a status conference in October and a 30-day deadline for Apple to either drop the lawsuit or commit to a trial.
- Without a conference, the next status report is scheduled for December 2nd.
Apple wants to know what the leak brought in
Apple is requesting Prosser's YouTube revenue reports and his channel's analytics data, as well as his communications with third parties. Apple aims to determine how much Prosser earned from the videos and how the confidential information was obtained and shared.
According to the report, Apple requested the documents more than three months ago and has not yet received them in full. Apple, however, considers its own disclosure sufficient. From Apple's perspective, the Signal messages between Prosser and Ramacciotti, as well as Prosser's statement, suggest a coordinated approach aimed at generating revenue.
Prosser: The secrets have long been public
Prosser's lawyer counters that his client has fulfilled the obligations agreed upon when the default judgment was lifted in June. Apple demands further documentation after each delivery.
Prosser's argument focuses on the core of the lawsuit. He argues that the alleged trade secrets became public at the latest with the release of iOS 26 and macOS 26, and that some were never secret in the first place due to prior publications by third parties. Furthermore, he contends that Apple's written description of the secrets lacked illustrations, making verification difficult.
In his July response to the lawsuit, Prosser had already admitted to a FaceTime call in which Ramacciotti showed him functions on the development device. He denies any coordinated action.
Ramacciotti pulls away
Ramacciotti wants to stay out of the dispute between Apple and Prosser. He has asked Judge James Donato for a status conference in October, at which Apple is to outline what further evidence it needs. Afterward, Apple is to have 30 days to either drop its claims against him or decide whether to proceed with a trial.
This also means a postponement of a date that was still set in August. At that time, Ramacciotti's second hearing was scheduled for September. Now he is linking it and updated written answers to a timetable that Apple is supposed to present first.
| Date | Step in the process |
|---|---|
| July 17, 2025 | Apple files lawsuit |
| June 2026 | Default judgment against Prosser is overturned |
| July 2, 2026 | Prosser's response to the complaint |
| August 5, 2026 | Status report: Radio silence from Prosser's lawyer since July 6th. |
| September 2026 | planned second interrogation of Ramacciotti |
| October 7, 2026 | joint status report including Apple's YouTube demand |
| December 2, 2026 | Next status report if no conference takes place |
This argument only addresses half the complaint
I think Prosser's main argument is weaker than it sounds. Apple is demanding two things: damages and an injunction against further publication. The fact that the features are now public primarily affects the injunction. For the damages claim, however, what matters is what happened before Apple's own announcement – and that's precisely why Apple now wants the YouTube figures.
The real move comes from Ramacciotti. A co-defendant demanding a deadline for Apple's decision is increasing the pressure to either proceed with the lawsuit against him or drop it. Whether Judge Donato schedules the conference will determine whether anything happens before the end of the year.
Should Apple be allowed to disclose a leaker's earnings, or is that going too far for a system that's already been released? Let us know in the comments where you would draw the line.
