Now Reading: Apple Triumphs in Marathon Lawsuit Over Musi App Store Removal
-
01
Apple Triumphs in Marathon Lawsuit Over Musi App Store Removal
Photo Credit: Medhat Dawoud
Multiple years and depositions later, a federal judge has officially tossed the breach of contract lawsuit filed against Apple by playlist app Musi.
Judge Eumi Lee just recently granted Apple’s motion to dismiss the complaint. We first covered the action way back in 2024, when the plaintiff accused the tech giant of unjustly removing its app from the App Store.
Long story short, said removal followed a healthy dose of Musi criticism – including from the majors and the NMPA – as the company gained commercial momentum with its “organizational tool for videos on YouTube.”
(We explored those claims against the “parasitic threat” Musi well before the lawsuit’s October 2024 submission.)
And in the filing party’s view, the app pulldown violated Apple’s developer terms and the implied covenant of good faith.
Unsurprisingly, none of this sat right with Apple, which refuted the allegations and, after providing north of 3,500 documents and seeing Musi depose two of its “key” employees during an involved discovery process, sought sanctions.
On the former front, Judge Lee, in granting Apple’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, confirmed the relevant terms as “clear and explicit” in authorizing the defendant to boot App Store apps.
“Based on this language, Apple had the right to cease offering the Musi app without cause if Apple provided notice to Musi,” the judge wrote. “The complaint alleges, and Musi does not dispute, that Apple gave Musi the required notice.”
As for Apple’s alleged violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court touched on several points en route to again emphasizing the terms themselves.
“Based on the plain language of the DPLA [Developer Program License Agreement], Apple had the express right to remove the Musi app from the App Store ‘at any time, with or without cause,’” Judge Lee penned. “The covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot impose an obligation on Apple that contradicts this express term.”
“Finally, even if the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing limited Apple’s termination rights, which it does not, Musi still fails to plausibly allege that Apple acted in bad faith. … Regardless, the complaint reflects that Apple was facing pressure from multiple music industry complaints,” the court continued.
Returning to the sanctions, the judge also partially granted Apple’s request, describing Musi’s action as “not the paradigm of candor” and pushing “the limits of vigorous advocacy.”
Specifically, an alleged Rule 11 violation occurred because “it was factually baseless [for Musi and its counsel] to allege that Apple ‘admitted’ that evidence from the NMPA regarding Musi’s intellectual property infringement was false, or that Apple knew that the evidence was false.”
From there, the court rejected other Rule 11 violation claims and addressed the lone infraction by striking five words from the complaint as well as ordering Musi’s legal team to pay fees stemming from the sanctions litigation.
