Apple files lawsuit against YouTuber over alleged iOS 26 leak
Leaks have long been a common occurrence in the tech world, especially involving companies like Apple. Industry insiders and leakers such as Prosser and Bloomberg's Mark Gurman frequently share predictions about upcoming Apple products, often citing anonymous company sources. While these leaks have become routine, Apple is now pushing back more aggressively.
According to the complaint, Prosser, who runs the YouTube channel Front Page Tech, allegedly collaborated with a co-conspirator to gain access to an Apple employee's development iPhone running the unreleased iOS 26 software. The suit identifies the employee as Ethan Lipnik and states that another defendant, Michael Ramacciotti—who was reportedly staying at Lipnik's home—waited until Lipnik left before accessing the device. Ramacciotti then allegedly shared details of the unreleased software with Prosser via video call. Prosser is accused of using this early information in videos posted well before Apple's official announcements.
The lawsuit also claims that Ramacciotti stated Prosser orchestrated the entire plan, promising to find a way to compensate Ramacciotti for his involvement.
Prosser has publicly denied any wrongdoing and disputes the accuracy of the lawsuit's details. In a direct message, he told reporters, 'The details that Apple was given are just not accurate. I had no knowledge of how the info was obtained. He never told me he 'needed money' and I absolutely did not instruct him to act this out.'
While Prosser acknowledges that he shared the leaked information on his channel — including calling it 'the biggest iOS leak ever'—he rejects any involvement in how the information was procured.
The incident has had consequences within Apple. Ethan Lipnik, the employee whose device was allegedly accessed, was terminated for violating company policies protecting confidential information and unreleased software, according to the complaint.
Apple and Lipnik have not responded to requests for comment.
Tech analyst Anshel Sag of Moor Insights & Strategy described the lawsuit as 'quite significant,' noting a clear difference between Apple's allegations and Prosser's account, particularly as the employee involved appeared unaware of the leak.
Sag emphasized that the key issue lies in the inadequate protection of the development device and the need to verify the origin of leaked information before public dissemination. He added that Apple has stronger legal tools in the U.S. to combat leaks compared to previous incidents often traced to international manufacturing partners.
The complaint cites violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, both enforceable in federal court.
Prosser said he only learned of the lawsuit through media reports. Expressing sympathy for Lipnik's firing, he stated, 'I wish he had shared with Apple what had occurred, and I wish that Apple would have connected with me for more answers—I would have gladly chatted with them.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kuwait Times
a day ago
- Kuwait Times
Is today's AI boom bigger than the dotcom bubble?
By Jamie McGeever ORLANDO: Wall Street's concentration in the red-hot tech sector is, by some measures, greater than it has ever been, eclipsing levels hit during the 1990s dotcom bubble. But does this mean history is bound to repeat itself? The growing concentration in US equities instantly brings to mind the Internet and communications frenzy of the late 1990s. The tech-heavy Nasdaq peaked in March 2000 before cratering 65 percent over the following 12 months. And it didn't revisit its previous high for 14 years. It seems unlikely that we'll see a repeat of this today, right? Maybe. The market's reaction function appears to be different from what it was during the dotcom boom and bust. Just look at the current rebound from its post-'Liberation Day' tariff slump in early April – one of the fastest on record – or its rally during the pandemic. But despite all of these differences, there are also some worrying parallels. Investors would do well to keep both in mind. Top 10 club The most obvious similarity between these two periods is the concentration of tech and related industries in US equity markets. The broad tech sector now accounts for 34 percent of the S&P 500's market cap, according to some data, exceeding the previous record of 33 percent set in March 2000. Of the top 10 companies by market capitalization today, eight are tech or communications behemoths. They include the so-called 'Magnificent 7' – Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla – as well as Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan. By contrast, only five of the 10 biggest companies in 1999 were tech firms. The other five were General Electric, Citi, Exxon, Walmart, and Home Depot. On top of that, the top 10 companies' footprint in the S&P 500 today is much larger than it was back then. The combined market cap of the top 10 today is almost $22 trillion, or 40 percent of the index's total, significantly higher than the comparable 25 percent in 1999. This all reflects the fact that technology plays a much bigger role in the US economy today than it did around the turn of the millennium. AI bubble? By some measures, the current tech boom, driven in part by enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, is more extreme than the IT bubble of the late 1990s. As Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, points out, the 12-month forward earnings valuation of today's top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 is higher than it was 25 years ago. However, it's worth remembering that the dotcom bubble was characterized by a frenzy of public offerings and a raft of companies with shares valued at triple-digit multiples of future earnings. That's not the case today. While the S&P tech sector is trading at 29.5 times forward earnings today, which is high by historical standards, this is nowhere near the peak of almost 50 times recorded in 2000. Similarly, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq are currently trading around 22 and 28.5 times forward earnings, compared with the dotcom peaks of 24.5 and over 70 times, respectively. With all that being said, a meaningful, prolonged market correction cannot be ruled out, especially if AI-driven growth isn't delivered as quickly as investors expect. AI, the new driver of technological development, will require vast capital outlays, especially on data centers, which may mean that earnings and share price growth in tech could slow in the short run. According to Morgan Stanley, the transformative potential of generative AI will require roughly $2.9 trillion of global data center spending through 2028, comprising $1.6 trillion on hardware like chips and servers and $1.3 trillion on infrastructure. That means investment needs of over $900 billion in 2028, they reckon. For context, combined capital expenditure by all S&P 500 companies last year was around $950 billion. Wall Street analysts are well aware of these figures, which suggests that at least some percentage of these huge sums should be factored into current share prices and expected earnings, but what if the benefits of AI take longer to deliver? Or what if an upstart (remember China's DeepSeek) dramatically shifts growth expectations for a major component of the index, like $4-trillion chipmaker Nvidia? Of course, technology is so fundamental to today's society and economy that it's difficult to imagine its market footprint shrinking too much, for too long, as this raises the inevitable question of where investor capital would go. It's therefore reasonable to question whether a tech crash today would take well over a decade to recover from. But, on the other hand, it's that type of thinking that has gotten investors into trouble before. Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters
Arab Times
2 days ago
- Arab Times
'Free' apps, costly privacy: Experts warn of data-hungry downloads
NEW YORK, July 22: Some of the world's most widely used smartphone apps have come under scrutiny for demanding extensive access to personal data, often beyond what's necessary for basic functionality, according to a new investigation by consumer watchdog Which? The study, conducted with cybersecurity experts from Hexiosec, analyzed 20 popular Android apps spanning social media, online shopping, smart home, and fitness categories. The findings reveal that all of them requested "risky" permissions—such as access to users' microphone, location, and device files—raising significant privacy concerns. While apps like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Amazon, and WhatsApp are marketed as free, Which? warns that users are often paying with their personal information. 'Millions of us rely on apps each day for everything from health tracking to shopping,' said Harry Rose, editor of Which? 'But our research shows that users may be surrendering vast amounts of data—often unknowingly.' Together, the 20 apps have been downloaded more than 28 billion times globally. If installed on one device, these apps would collectively request 882 permissions. Among these, Xiaomi Home requested the highest number — 91 permissions in total, five of which were flagged as risky. Risky permissions include those that allow apps to record audio, access precise GPS location, read internal files, or even overlay content on top of other apps—often without any clear user benefit. Samsung's SmartThings app followed with 82 requested permissions (eight risky), with Facebook demanding 69 (six risky), and WhatsApp asking for 66 (six risky). The apps that sought permission to draw over other apps—creating pop-ups—and those that activate when a phone is turned on, were also cause for concern. TikTok, for instance, requested 41 permissions (three risky), and YouTube sought 47 (four risky). Xiaomi Home and AliExpress were the only two apps found to send user data to servers in China, including suspected advertising networks. While this was disclosed in both apps' privacy policies, experts noted the potential implications for user data security. AliExpress requested six risky permissions, including precise location, microphone access, and file reading. It also sent users an overwhelming 30 promotional emails within a month, despite no specific permission request for email marketing. Temu, another Chinese online retailer, was criticized for aggressively pushing users into subscribing to marketing emails—often without them realizing it. The Which? team advised consumers to take several steps to safeguard their privacy: Review privacy info: Check what data an app collects before downloading it via the app store listing.n Read the privacy policy: Focus especially on sections detailing data collection and sharing.n Limit or revoke permissions: On both Android and iOS, users can manage what data apps can access through Settings.n Delete apps you don't trust: Uninstall apps you're unsure about, and make sure all associated account data is deleted.n Some apps, like Ring and WhatsApp, may require microphone access for core functionality. However, the necessity of certain permissions—like tracking which apps are open or recently used—is questionable, the experts said. Apps including Facebook, WhatsApp, AliExpress, and Strava were found to seek such permissions. The research was conducted using Android devices; permission settings may differ for Apple iOS users. In response to the findings: Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) claimed none of its apps access microphones in the background without user consent.n Samsung stated that all its apps comply with UK data protection laws and ICO guidance.n TikTok emphasized that privacy and security are 'built into every product' and that it collects only essential information.n Strava defended its use of precise location data as necessary to deliver its services, adding that it employs 'appropriate guardrails' for data usage.n Amazon said its permissions enable features like visualizing products using the camera and voice search, with users having control over personalized ads.n AliExpress stated that certain permissions are not used in the UK and require user consent, asserting compliance with privacy laws.n Ring maintained that it doesn't use trackers for advertising and only uses permissions to enable features requested by users.n Temu said GPS-based address completion is not used in the UK and that it handles user data in accordance with international standards.n
Arab Times
5 days ago
- Arab Times
Apple files lawsuit against YouTuber over alleged iOS 26 leak
NEW YORK, July 19: Apple has taken legal action against prominent leaker Jon Prosser, accusing him of conspiring to break into an Apple development device and steal confidential trade secrets. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Prosser sought to profit from stolen information about the unreleased iOS 26 software. Leaks have long been a common occurrence in the tech world, especially involving companies like Apple. Industry insiders and leakers such as Prosser and Bloomberg's Mark Gurman frequently share predictions about upcoming Apple products, often citing anonymous company sources. While these leaks have become routine, Apple is now pushing back more aggressively. According to the complaint, Prosser, who runs the YouTube channel Front Page Tech, allegedly collaborated with a co-conspirator to gain access to an Apple employee's development iPhone running the unreleased iOS 26 software. The suit identifies the employee as Ethan Lipnik and states that another defendant, Michael Ramacciotti—who was reportedly staying at Lipnik's home—waited until Lipnik left before accessing the device. Ramacciotti then allegedly shared details of the unreleased software with Prosser via video call. Prosser is accused of using this early information in videos posted well before Apple's official announcements. The lawsuit also claims that Ramacciotti stated Prosser orchestrated the entire plan, promising to find a way to compensate Ramacciotti for his involvement. Prosser has publicly denied any wrongdoing and disputes the accuracy of the lawsuit's details. In a direct message, he told reporters, 'The details that Apple was given are just not accurate. I had no knowledge of how the info was obtained. He never told me he 'needed money' and I absolutely did not instruct him to act this out.' While Prosser acknowledges that he shared the leaked information on his channel — including calling it 'the biggest iOS leak ever'—he rejects any involvement in how the information was procured. The incident has had consequences within Apple. Ethan Lipnik, the employee whose device was allegedly accessed, was terminated for violating company policies protecting confidential information and unreleased software, according to the complaint. Apple and Lipnik have not responded to requests for comment. Tech analyst Anshel Sag of Moor Insights & Strategy described the lawsuit as 'quite significant,' noting a clear difference between Apple's allegations and Prosser's account, particularly as the employee involved appeared unaware of the leak. Sag emphasized that the key issue lies in the inadequate protection of the development device and the need to verify the origin of leaked information before public dissemination. He added that Apple has stronger legal tools in the U.S. to combat leaks compared to previous incidents often traced to international manufacturing partners. The complaint cites violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, both enforceable in federal court. Prosser said he only learned of the lawsuit through media reports. Expressing sympathy for Lipnik's firing, he stated, 'I wish he had shared with Apple what had occurred, and I wish that Apple would have connected with me for more answers—I would have gladly chatted with them.'
