Apple Sues YouTuber Over iOS 26 “Liquid Glass” Design Leak
Although Apple is no stranger to leaks, the iOS 26 “Liquid Glass” incident has led to legal consequences. In January, a video appeared on the Front Page Tech YouTube channel, showcasing a mock-up of a redesigned Camera app. This design preview aligned closely with Apple’s eventual reveal of the Liquid Glass interface in June.
While the video did not display the original footage, Apple alleges the leak stemmed from unauthorized access to a company-owned development device. The device reportedly belonged to an Apple employee named Ethan Lipnik, who worked on unreleased iOS features. Apple asserts that Ramacciotti, a friend of Lipnik, accessed this device while Lipnik was away. The filing claims Ramacciotti used FaceTime to share what he saw with Prosser, who then published the information.
According to Apple, the scheme was motivated by financial need and the opportunity to generate YouTube ad revenue. This level of detail, combined with the scope of the leak, pushed Apple to take legal action.
Legal and Internal Fallout
As outlined in Apple’s official complaint, the source of the leak was confirmed by an audio message sent to Lipnik by Ramacciotti. Additionally, an anonymous email submitted to Apple identified the individuals involved, including others whose names were redacted.
The legal document reveals that Lipnik was dismissed from Apple for not following security protocols. These included improper handling of development devices and failure to report earlier incidents. Despite Apple’s public unveiling of iOS 26, the company claims the device in question still contains confidential material that has yet to be disclosed.
Apple is seeking damages from both defendants. It also aims to prevent any further sharing or misuse of its protected information. The company states that the risk posed by the defendants remains ongoing, due to their previous access to unreleased content.
Ongoing Concerns Over Trade Secrets
Leaks surrounding Apple’s software and hardware developments are frequent. However, the company argues that this particular case crossed a line. Because the accused individuals allegedly bypassed internal safeguards and shared trade secrets, Apple has taken formal steps to secure its intellectual property.
The lawsuit underlines Apple’s broader efforts to protect its developmental processes. It also highlights how serious the company is about holding individuals accountable when sensitive information is exposed without authorization.
