Apple wins lawsuit against Musi: The court rules that it has the right to remove App Store applications without reason

IT之家 March 18 report: Apple won in its lawsuit against free music streaming app Musi, according to TorrentFreak. The case was filed in 2024, after Apple removed the app from the App Store. A U.S. District Judge in the state of California ruled to dismiss Musi’s lawsuit, bar it from filing an appeal again, and confirmed that Apple has the right to remove apps from the App Store for any reason or no reason at all.

据 IT之家, the Musi app earns revenue by playing content publicly accessible on YouTube, while also displaying its own ads in the interface. The app has drawn attention because it has not signed any license agreements with copyright holders directly.

Before the app was taken down in September 2024, multiple parties had already filed complaints with Apple against Musi, accusing it of infringing third-party intellectual property rights or violating relevant service terms.

Over the years, YouTube has contacted Apple multiple times, complaining that Musi engages in copyright infringement and misuses its technology. Musi denied the allegations, and sued Apple, claiming it violated the developer agreement and removed the app based solely on unverified copyright claims.

The judge found that the developer agreement clearly states that Apple may, at any time, remove an app from the App Store for any reason or no reason. The court ruling noted:

The terms of the Developer Program Licensing Agreement (DPLA) are clear, unambiguous, and binding: Apple may at any time stop promotion, remove from the App Store, and allow end users to download the Musi app, regardless of whether there is a reason, as long as it issues a termination notice.

Under that clause, as long as Apple sends Musi a notice, it has the right to take down the app without a reason. What is mentioned in the complaint and that Musi did not deny is that Apple has already sent Musi the required notice. Therefore, Apple’s decision to remove Musi from the App Store did not violate the developer agreement.

Musi also argued that Apple acted with malice and “intentionally relied on false evidence” to take it down. But the judge issued a ruling that partially granted Apple’s request for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, imposing sanctions on Musi’s law firm. The ruling stated that the firm engaged in fabricating facts:

After two months of evidence discovery (including subpoenaing Apple witnesses and reviewing Apple documents), the law firm of Winston & Strawn was not entitled to fabricate facts to fill what it believed were evidence gaps in the Musi case.

Although the court’s ruling in this case is in Apple’s favor, the court also said that this is one of the very few cases where Rule 11 sanctions are both necessary and appropriate. The legal fees and other related expenses arising from Apple’s sanctions motion will be borne by Musi.