A lawsuit brought against Apple by music streaming app Musi has been dismissed by a federal judge, after she ruled that Apple's developer agreement gives it the right to remove any app from the App Store at any time, "with or without cause."
Launched in 2013 by two Canadian teenagers, Musi was an app that played YouTube videos in a stripped-down interface, showed its own ads (removable for $5.99), and let users build playlists. Basically, it was a free music streaming service built on top of YouTube's content but without paying rights holders, and it was downloaded from the App Store tens of millions of times.
Musi claimed it complied with YouTube's terms, but Apple pulled it from the App Store in September 2024, following pressure from Sony, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), and the National Music Publishers Association.
Musi subsequently sued Apple for pulling the app, alleging that its removal was based on unsubstantiated intellectual property claims from YouTube. The lawsuit went so far as to argue that Apple had violated its own Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), and that Apple was required to conduct a review and form a "reasonable belief" that the app infringed IP rights before pulling it.
However, Northern California district judge Eumi Lee rejected that argument entirely. The DPLA's plain language allows Apple to stop offering an app at any time as long as it provides notice, said the judge, adding that the "reasonable belief" clause does not limit that broad right. On this basis, the case was summarily dismissed with prejudice – a legal term meaning Musi cannot refile the same claims (but it could still appeal).
Lee, writing in the court motion:
"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."
The ruling also came with a striking rebuke of Musi's legal team. Judge Lee sanctioned law firm Winston & Strawn for alleging that Apple had "admitted" to knowingly relying on false evidence – a claim the judge found had no factual basis, even after Musi's lawyers had spent two months reviewing Apple's internal documents and deposing its employees.
Sanctions are an unusual step in which a court penalizes attorneys for making claims that lack evidentiary support. Judge Lee admonished the firm for "making up facts," and ordered it to pay Apple's costs related to the sanctions motion.
It wasn't the first time Musi's conduct had come under scrutiny in the case, either. Apple alleged in a separate May 2025 filing that Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski had previously forwarded a fabricated email to Apple, purportedly from a Universal Music Group (UMG) executive, in an attempt to get the app reinstated after an earlier removal. UMG later informed Apple that the email was fraudulent, according to Apple's filing.
In a curious twist, Musi actually asked the judge to award them attorneys' fees for having to defend against Apple's sanctions motion. The judge called this "audacious" given that Musi lost on every front.
Perhaps most notably, the ruling could have broader implications well beyond the Musi app. Given that the ruling affirms the DPLA's language so clearly, it arguably gives Apple strong legal backing for future app removals, regardless of the stated reason. Going forward, developers challenging their app's removal from the App Store are therefore likely to have a harder time arguing Apple breached its own agreement.
