No Cause Required: The New Legal Reality for Every App on Your iPhone
Toggle Dark Mode
In 2024, Apple pulled the free music streaming app Musi from the App Store following a complaint that it was violating YouTube’s terms of service, prompting the developers to sue Apple over the removal. This week, a federal judge has dismissed that lawsuit in a move that could set a legal precedent when it comes to App Store app removals.
As reported by Ars Technica, US District Judge Eumi Lee in the Northern District of California dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice earlier this week, prohibiting Musi from refiling the claim.
Musi was a free streaming music app that pulled songs from the YouTube video platform. The app was delisted from the App Store when Google filed a complaint that the app violated YouTube’s terms of service.
As you might expect, Musi denied Google’s claims, arguing that what the app does was no different than users manually accessing YouTube directly via a web browser.
Soon after Apple delisted the Musi app, the company sued, arguing that Apple had acted in bad faith, and “knowingly relied on false evidence” to remove it from the App Store.
On Tuesday, Judge Lee ruled that Apple is allowed to delist apps from the App Store “with or without cause,” as is stipulated in the Apple Developer Program License Agreement that Musi agreed to by getting the app in the App Store in the first place.
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.
Judge Lee also partly granted Apple’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Musi Inc.’s law firm, for a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), which requires that factual contentions have evidence to support them or “will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”
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.
As reported by Mactrast, Musi’s legal team had charged that Apple and unnamed music-industry players had colluded to remove Musi from the App Store, and claimed that Apple had “admitted” to knowingly relying on false evidence to justify the removal — a claim Judge Lee said was “so factually baseless that it violates Rule 11,” making this “one of the rare cases in which Rule 11 sanctions are necessary and appropriate,” and ordered the law firm to pay Apple’s legal fees and costs related to the motion.
You can read the full text of Judge Lee’s order dismissing the Musi lawsuit online, as well as the ruling granting Apple’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
