Apple asked a California federal court to enter default against YouTuber Jon Prosser after he failed to respond to the company’s trade-secrets complaint by the required date. The filing, submitted on Friday, says Prosser neither answered nor appeared, opening the door to a potential judgment without his participation. You now see Apple moving to secure relief quickly while litigation against a second defendant continues.
According to new docket entries and the underlying filings on CourtListener, the judge already extended Michael Ramacciotti’s response deadline to October 17 because he retained counsel after his initial August 14 cutoff. The same filings show Apple requesting default against Prosser, citing his continued absence from the case. The action is proceeding in the Northern District of California under case number 3:25-cv-06043.
What Apple wants from the court
Apple seeks monetary damages and an injunction that would bar Prosser and Ramacciotti from using or disclosing confidential material going forward. If the judge grants default, you should expect the court to weigh Apple’s proof of damages and requested permanent restrictions.
The complaint alleges the pair accessed a development iPhone tied to former Apple software engineer Ethan Lipnik and exploited unreleased iOS features for content on Prosser’s Front Page Tech channel. Apple says those leaks previewed the “Liquid Glass” design later unveiled with iOS 26 at WWDC 2025, and it attributes key steps in the scheme to Ramacciotti’s outreach to Prosser. Earlier coverage from Reuters and The Verge details Apple’s timeline, the alleged FaceTime showing of the software, and Apple’s assertion that Lipnik was later fired for policy violations.
Prosser is active on YouTube while remaining silent in court, including an iPhone Air review this week noted in the latest docket summary. Apple is pressing its procedural advantage while maintaining pressure for quick injunctive relief. Ramacciotti still has time to answer by October 17, but Prosser now risks a judgment that could lock in damages and strict disclosure limits.
