Apple has always been famous for its ability to keep leaks about its new products and software to a minimum. The "surprise effect" is part of its marketing DNA, and they make sure that all new features are revealed at the right time, not before. But now, the company has decided to take that control a step further: it has filed a federal lawsuit against leaker Jon Prosser (known online as Front Page Tech) for allegedly stealing trade secrets related to iOS 26, the latest version of its iPhone operating system.

What does Apple's lawsuit say?

The lawsuit was filed on July 18, 2025, in the Northern District of California. Apple accuses Prosser and an associate, Michael Ramacciotti, of conspiring to illegally access a development iPhone belonging to Ethan Lipnik, an engineer at the company.

According to the documents, Ramacciotti was reportedly staying at Lipnik's home. He took advantage of the engineer's absence—detected via GPS location—and obtained the iPhone's passcode assigned for internal testing. He then placed a video call to Prosser, in which he showed him the device's contents in real time, including unreleased features of iOS 26.

Prosser allegedly recorded the session, created images and renders from the material, and subsequently published it on his YouTube channel, weeks before the official announcement during WWDC.

Apple maintains that it received a voice note from Ramacciotti, in which he apologized to Lipnik and pointed out that it was all Prosser's idea. The situation came to light when a follower recognized the engineer's apartment through images shared by Prosser himself.

As a result, Apple fired Lipnik and is now seeking not only monetary damages, but also an injunction preventing Prosser from further disclosing sensitive information.

Jon Prosser's response and defense

Prosser did not remain silent.Through his social media accounts, he stated that the version presented by Apple "does not reflect what happened" from his perspective. He maintains that he has evidence that will show that he did not orchestrate the access to the device, that he did not have any passwords, and that he was unaware of how the information was obtained.

In his own words:

"I did not plan to access anyone's phone. I did not have any passwords. He didn't even know how the information was obtained.â€

He also assured that he will present everything necessary in court and that he is prepared to demonstrate that he acted in good faith.

The clash between leaks and trade secrets

This case opens a new chapter in the eternal conflict between the public's interest in knowing about technological developments and the need for companies to protect their developments. Apple has historically been very secretive with its information, and this case shows that it will not hesitate to use strong legal tools to protect its intellectual property.

Although iOS 26 has already been officially introduced, Apple claims that the breached device contained other design elements that have not been publicly disclosed, reinforcing its argument that this is a serious violation of trade secrets.

It also seeks to set a precedent: to demonstrate that leaks can cost not only employees, but also the content creators who benefit from that information. The goal is not only to punish, but also to deter future leaks of this type. This case will be key in defining the boundaries between tech journalism, leaks, and the legal protection of innovations in development. Meanwhile, Apple reaffirms its message: if someone tries to steal its magic, it will not hesitate to defend it in court.Apple has historically been very secretive with its information, and this case shows that it will not hesitate to use strong legal tools to protect its intellectual property.

Although iOS 26 has already been officially introduced, Apple claims that the breached device contained other design elements that have not been publicly disclosed, reinforcing its argument that this is a serious violation of trade secrets.

It also seeks to set a precedent: to demonstrate that leaks can cost not only employees, but also the content creators who benefit from that information. The goal is not only to punish, but also to deter future leaks of this type. This case will be key in defining the boundaries between tech journalism, leaks, and the legal protection of innovations in development. Meanwhile, Apple reaffirms its message: if someone tries to steal its magic, it will not hesitate to defend it in court.Apple has historically been very secretive with its information, and this case shows that it will not hesitate to use strong legal tools to protect its intellectual property.

Although iOS 26 has already been officially introduced, Apple claims that the breached device contained other design elements that have not been publicly disclosed, reinforcing its argument that this is a serious violation of trade secrets.

It also seeks to set a precedent: to demonstrate that leaks can cost not only employees, but also the content creators who benefit from that information. The goal is not only to punish, but also to deter future leaks of this type. This case will be key in defining the boundaries between tech journalism, leaks, and the legal protection of innovations in development. Meanwhile, Apple reaffirms its message: if someone tries to steal its magic, it will not hesitate to defend it in court.