Apple won a lawsuit against the free music streaming app Musi, which was filed in 2024 after Apple removed the app from its App Store. A California district judge ruled that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice and that Apple can remove apps from the App Store, "with or without cause."
The Musi app streamed publicly available YouTube content while displaying its own ads alongside it. The app came under the radar because it didn"t directly ink any deals with copyright holders.
Before the app"s removal in September 2024, multiple complaints were made to Apple and Musi, alleging that the app "infringed third-party intellectual property rights or violated certain terms of service."
Over the years, YouTube reached out to Apple multiple times to complain about copyright infringement and misuse of its technology. On the other hand, Musi dismissed such claims and sued Apple over alleged breach of its developer agreement and removal of the app over unsubstantiated copyright claims.
The judge found that the developer agreement allows Apple to delist an app from the App Store at any time "with or without cause. The order states (spotted by TorrentFreak)):
The plain language of the DPLA governs because it is clear and explicit: Apple may “cease marketing, offering, and allowing download by end-users of the [Musi app] at any time, with or without cause, by providing notice of termination.”
Based on this language, Apple had the right to cease offering the Musi app without cause if Apple provided notice to Musi. The complaint alleges, and Musi does not dispute, that Apple gave Musi the required notice. Therefore, Apple’s decision to remove the Musi app from the App Store did not breach the DPLA.
Musi also argued that Apple acted in "bad faith" and "knowingly relied on false evidence" to delist Musi from the App Store. However, the judge issued an order partly granting Apple"s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Musi"s law firm. Sanctioning Musi"s lawyers for making up facts, the order reads:
After taking two months of discovery, including deposing Apple witnesses and reviewing Apple documents, Winston & Strawn was not at liberty to make up facts to fill the perceived gaps in Musi’s case.
While the ruling went in Apple"s favor, the court added that it"s one of the rare cases where Rule 11 sanctions are "necessary and appropriate." Apple"s legal fees and other expenses related to the sanctions motion will have to be borne by Musi.