Apple Wins Final Award in Musi App Store Removal Case
A lawsuit against Apple over music streaming app Musi has been dismissed by a federal judge, after it ruled that Apple’s developer agreement gives it the right to remove any app from the App Store at any time, “without reason.”
Launched in 2013 by two young Canadians, Musi was an app that played YouTube videos in the open, displayed its own ads (removable for $5.99), and allowed users to create playlists. Essentially, it was a free music streaming service built on top of YouTube content but without paying rights holders, and it was downloaded on the app store tens of millions of times.
Musi said 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 then sued Apple for removing the app, saying the removal was based on unsubstantiated intellectual property claims from YouTube. The lawsuit even claimed that Apple violated the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), and that Apple was required to conduct a review and form a “reasonable belief” that the app violated IP rights before pulling it.
However, Northern California District Judge Eumi Lee rejected that argument outright. The DPLA’s plain language allows Apple to stop offering an app at any time as long as it gives notice, the judge said, 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 that Musi cannot recover the same claims (but can still appeal).
Lee, writing in the court’s decision:
“The clear language of the DPLA prevails because it is clear and unambiguous: Apple may ‘stop marketing, offering, and allowing downloads to end users [Musi app] at any time, without cause, by giving notice of termination.’ Based on this language, Apple had the right to stop providing the Musi app without reason if Apple gives 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 violate the DPLA.”
This decision also appeared to rebuke Musi’s legal team. Judge Lee chastised law firm Winston & Strawn for allegations that Apple “admitted” to knowingly relying on false testimony – a claim the judge found untrue, even after Musi’s lawyers spent two months reviewing Apple’s internal documents and firing its employees.
Sanctions are an unusual step in which a court punishes lawyers for making claims that have no supporting evidence. Judge Lee admonished the company for “fact-finding,” and ordered it to pay Apple’s costs related to the punitive motion.
It was not the first time that Musi’s behavior was under scrutiny in this case. Apple alleged in a separate May 2025 filing that Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski had sent a fake email to Apple, purportedly from a Universal Music Group (UMG) executive, in an attempt to restore the app after it was previously removed. UMG later notified Apple that the email was fraudulent, according to Apple’s filing.
In a strange twist, Musi asked the judge to award them attorneys’ fees for defending themselves against Apple’s sanctions decisions. The judge called this “brilliant” as Musi was defeated in all parties.
Perhaps most notably, the decision could have far-reaching implications beyond the Musi app. Given that the decision affirms the language of the DPLA so clearly, it arguably gives Apple strong legal support for future app removals, regardless of the stated reason. Going forward, developers challenging the removal of their app from the App Store may therefore have a more difficult time arguing that Apple has breached its agreement.
