The recording comes in the setting of the claim brought by Apple Inc. (Apple) against Prosser and Ramacciotti. In its complaint (recorded July 17, 2025) Apple charges that the two locked in in a facilitated plot to get to and spill trade‑secret data from an Apple advancement iPhone running unreleased highlights of iOS 26.
courtlistener.com
+1
Specifically, Apple claims that Ramacciotti gotten to the iPhone of a previous Apple representative and at that point transmitted screenshots/videos or FaceTime pictures of unreleased iOS highlights to Prosser, who at that point distributed or benefitted off them.
scribd.com
+1
Prosser is known for his leak‑/rumor‑style scope of Apple items; Ramacciotti is depicted in the recording as a companion of the Apple worker.
AppleInsider
+1
With that background, the newly‑filed report (Ramacciotti answer/response) presents a to some degree diverse story with respect to the installment in question.
What the installment was, when and how it happened
The key unused detail is that Prosser paid Ramacciotti US $650 after a FaceTime call amid which Ramacciotti appeared undisclosed iOS 26 highlights utilizing the Apple employee’s improvement gadget.
The Verge
+2
9to5Mac
+2
According to Ramacciotti filing:
Ramacciotti concedes he gotten to the Apple employee’s advancement iPhone and appeared Prosser certain iOS highlights over FaceTime.
The Verge
He denies that he and Prosser entered into a pre‑arranged assentions or “deal” to share or monetize the data. In his words: the installment “was paid after the truth and was not concurred to in development of the activities and communications.”
The Verge
+1
Ramacciotti states he did not start communications with Prosser based on any guarantee of installment, nor did he anticipate installment. The capacity for Prosser to pay came after the FaceTime call where the highlights were appeared.
AppleInsider
The installment of $650 subsequently is portrayed by him as more of a “thank you” or ex post motion or maybe than legally binding stipend.
9to5Mac
+1
He too expressed he was not mindful at the time of the FaceTime call that Prosser might be recording or capturing the call. He denies having extra recordings or trade‑secret materials in his ownership.
The Verge
+1
Thus, whereas the installment is recognized, the characterization is vital: it is after the occasion, without earlier guarantee, and without formal course of action, agreeing to Ramacciotti statement.
Why the installment detail matters
This $650 figure and the timing of it are a basic piece in evaluating how Apple’s claims might admission. Specifically:
Apple’s complaint pivots on the thought of a “coordinated scheme” between Prosser and Ramacciotti to misappropriate Apple exchange insider facts (by means of the iPhone) for commercial pick up.
scribd.com
+1
If there is prove that the installment was pre‑arranged, or that there was an desire of installment in development, that underpins the thought of an understanding or conspiracy.
Ramacciotti version—that the installment came as it were after the divulgence, without earlier promise—undercuts the “scheme” account and outlines his activities more as a unconstrained or deft scene, or maybe than a arranged unlawful enterprise.
To cite one outline: “If the court accepts the installment came after the reality, Apple’s case for a facilitated plot debilitates. Without verification of an understanding or expectation, the story shifts from burglary to negligence.”
AppleInsider
+1
So the chronology and character of the installment are critical: timing (after the FaceTime call), expectation (no earlier guarantee), and sum (US$650) all figure into how the court — or in the long run a jury — may assess Apple’s allegations.
Additional claims & counter‑claims around the payment
Beyond the uncovered installment figure, the recording incorporates a few related claims from Ramacciotti that encourage shape the context.
Ramacciotti confirmations and disclaimers:
He concedes that he gotten to the Apple employee’s improvement iPhone and at that point concurred to appear Prosser highlights of iOS 26 through FaceTime.
The Verge
+1
He denies that he utilized area following or other covert strategies to pick up get to, in differentiate to Apple’s charge that he utilized area following of the Apple representative to decide when they would be absent.
AppleInsider
+1
He claims that he did not completely appreciate (at the time) the exclusive nature of the gadget or data, since the Apple worker (non‑party) had appeared him comparable highlights prior and appeared “willing” to appear them.
The Verge
He states he did not anticipate the $650 installment, nor did he start anything for emolument; the installment was or maybe Prosser’s activity after the FaceTime call.
AppleInsider
+1
He too claims he right now does not have any extra recordings, records or trade‑secret information from Apple past what was appeared.
The Verge
Apple’s position:
Apple fights that the iPhone in address was a “development” iPhone having a place to an Apple representative, containing unreleased highlights of iOS 26, and that Ramacciotti gotten to it without authorization.
scribd.com
+1
Apple’s complaint attests that Prosser paid Ramacciotti to give him with get to (or data) and that both benefitted from the spill. The joint case administration explanation says: “Mr. Ramacciotti took advantage of a individual relationship with the Apple representative to pick up get to … and Mr. Prosser paid him to do it.”
scribd.com
From Apple’s perspective, the installment is not coincidental but portion of a conspire to monetize exclusive information.
So the installment is at the heart of the debate: Is it a tip of appreciation (post‑factum) or is it the stipend component of a pre‑existing arrangement?
Implications & what to watch
Here are key suggestions of this installment detail—and what to observe going forward.
Legal suggestions for Apple’s case
If Apple cannot demonstrate that the installment was portion of a pre‑arranged bargain, at that point demonstrating “conspiracy” or “scheme” gets to be more challenging. As one article puts it: “Without confirmation of an assentions or aim, the account shifts from robbery to negligence.”
AppleInsider
+1
Conversely, if Apple finds prove (emails, chats, messages, or prior installments) that negate Ramacciotti adaptation, the installment seem serve as solid confirmation of coordination.
The moderately humble estimate of US$650 might influence harm calculations, in spite of the fact that for Apple the vital esteem of ensuring exchange privileged insights may matter more than the estimate of the payment.
Credibility and narratives
Ramacciotti form that he “didn’t anticipate payment” and that the installment was “after the fact” is central to his defense story: he was a fan, inquisitive, not a leaker for enlist. That contrasts with Apple’s depiction of a proficient leak‑operation.
For Prosser, who has not however reacted to the complaint (a default has been entered), the installment raises questions approximately his part and whether he effectively requested or arranged the spill.
AppleInsider
How the court sees the timing, any earlier communications, and the installment will fuel how each side’s account wins or loses.
Evidence & discovery
The case administration explanation demonstrates measurable collection of information: Ramacciotti given his individual tablet, two iPhones, his Twitter/X file, and bank/account data for examination.
scribd.com
Apple charges Ramacciotti may have erased important data—including content messages—after being informed to protect prove.
scribd.com
The installment itself (US$650) will likely be followed: when exchanged, by means of what instrument (bank exchange, PayPal, etc.), went with by any messages or memos, and whether it was connected to the FaceTime call.
Damage & relief
Apple looks for both financial harms and injunctive help (to anticipate encourage revelation).
scribd.com
+1
If the installment is characterized as a one‑time “thank you,” Apple might have a harder time appearing that the litigants planning to benefit from the illegal get to. Ramacciotti recording contends that Apple will be incapable to demonstrate harms past ostensible since iOS is given free and the spill may have constrained incremental esteem.
scribd.com
On the flip side, if Apple appears the spilled data had genuine monetizable esteem (sees, ad‑revenues, competitive hurt), indeed a little installment may see like the tip of a bigger iceberg.
Public picture & repercussions for rumors/leaks
Prosser, as a open figure and leak‑reporter, may confront reputational hazard. A installment connected to him in the setting of a trade‑secret charge seem raise questions approximately sourcing, morals, and legitimateness in the leak/rumor ecosystem.
Apple’s forceful pose in this case signals that it is willing to prosecute or maybe than settle in leak‑related things, possibly sending a caution to others included in comparative divulgences.
AppleInsider
What remains uncertain
Despite the clarity around the $650 installment, bounty remains unresolved:
Exact timing: The installment is depicted as “at a few point after the FaceTime call.” The correct date, the connect to the show‑and‑tell, and any contemporaneous communication stay unclear.
Mechanics of the installment: How the installment was made (electronic exchange, check, cash, PayPal) is not freely point by point yet.
Other stipend: Whether there were other payments—before or after—or other guarantees of installment is still in dispute.
Recording/Documentation: Ramacciotti states he was unconscious of a recording; Apple may contend recording happened or extra fabric was retained.
Role of Prosser: Since Prosser has not however reacted (default entered), his adaptation of occasions is not however on the open record—and that implies Apple’s claims and Ramacciotti protections are still being weighed without his formal testimony.
Value of the data spilled: How much commercial or competitive hurt Apple endured is still theoretical; whether the spilled highlights were distributed, monetized, or broadly spread remains to be built up.
0 Comments