\t![](\"https:\/\/9to5mac.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/app-store-ios-26.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&w=1600\")
\n\t<\/figure>\n
When Apple removed the free music streaming app Musi from the App Store in 2024, the developers sued<\/a>. This week, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in what might become a landmark case related to App Store delistings. Here are the details.<\/p>\n As spotted by Ars Technica<\/em><\/a>, US District Judge Eumi Lee in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit Musi Inc. brought against Apple in 2024.<\/p>\n In a nutshell, Musi was a free streaming music app that pulled songs from YouTube, and it was delisted from the App Store after Google argued that it violated its video platform\u2019s terms of service.<\/p>\n Musi, on the other hand, disputed this assertion from the start, arguing that what it did was no different than if their users accessed YouTube directly from a web browser.<\/p>\n Following the app\u2019s delisting, Musi Inc. sued, and one of its arguments stated that Apple had acted in bad faith, admitting \u201cthat it knowingly relied on false evidence\u201d to delist Musi from the App Store.<\/p>\n Today, Judge Lee decided that Apple is allowed to delist apps from the App Store \u201cwith or without cause,\u201d as stipulated in the Apple Developer Program License Agreement.<\/p>\n The plain language of the DPLA governs because it is clear and explicit: Apple may \u201ccease marketing, offering, and allowing download by end-users of the [Musi app] at any time, with or without cause, by providing notice of termination.\u201d [\u2026] 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. [\u2026] Therefore, Apple\u2019s decision to remove the Musi app from the App Store did not breach the DPLA.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Lee also partly granted Apple\u2019s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Musi Inc.\u2019s law firm, faulting its lawyers for making the \u201cbad faith\u201d allegation without factual support.<\/p>\n From her decision:<\/p>\n 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\u2019s case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In its \u201cbad faith\u201d filing, the company\u2019s legal team asserted that Apple and \u201cunnamed \u2018music-industry players\u2019\u201d had developed a \u201cbackchannel scheme\u201d to remove Musi from the App Store, and that Apple had \u201c\u2018admitted\u2019 that it knowingly relied on false evidence\u201d to do so.<\/p>\n In her decision, Judge Lee stated that \u201cthis is one of the rare cases in which Rule 11 sanctions are necessary and appropriate,\u201d and as a result, Musi Inc.\u2019s law firm was sentenced to pay Apple\u2019s legal fees and costs related to the sanctions motion.<\/p>\n Since the lawsuit was dismissed\u00a0with prejudice, this means that\u00a0Musi Inc. cannot file the same claim again in court.<\/p>\n You can read Judge Lee\u2019s order granting Apple\u2019s motion to dismiss the lawsuit here<\/a>, and her order partly granting Apple\u2019s motion for Rule 11 sanctions here<\/a>.<\/p>\n FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.<\/em> More.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\nApple came away with about as complete a legal victory as possible<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Worth checking out on Amazon<\/h4>\n
\n
\n\t\t\t![\"music](\"https:\/\/9to5mac.com\/wp-content\/themes\/ninetofive\/dist\/images\/google-preferred-source-badge-dark.png\"){kind=icon}
\n\t\t\t![\"music](\"https:\/\/9to5mac.com\/wp-content\/themes\/ninetofive\/dist\/images\/google-preferred-source-badge-light.png\"){kind=icon}
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/p>\n