Judge tosses Musi case against Apple, sanctions lawyers for \u201cmak[ing] up facts.\u201d<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
By Jon Brodkin<\/p>\n\n\n\n Musi, a free music-streaming app that had tens of millions of iPhone downloads and garnered plenty of controversy over its method of acquiring music, has lost an attempt to get back on Apple\u2019s App Store. A federal judge dismissed Musi\u2019s lawsuit against Apple with prejudice and sanctioned Musi\u2019s lawyers for \u201cmak[ing] up facts to fill the perceived gaps in Musi\u2019s case.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Musi built a streaming service without striking its own deals with copyright holders. It did so by playing music from YouTube, writing in its 2024 lawsuit<\/a> against Apple that \u201cthe Musi app plays or displays content based on the user\u2019s own interactions with YouTube and enhances the user experience via Musi\u2019s proprietary technology.\u201d Musi\u2019s app displayed its own ads but let users remove them for a one-time fee of $5.99.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Musi claimed it complied with YouTube\u2019s terms, but Apple removed it from the App Store in September 2024. Musi does not offer an Android app. Musi alleged<\/a> that Apple delisted its app based on \u201cunsubstantiated\u201d intellectual property claims from YouTube and that Apple violated its own Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) by delisting the app.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Musi was handed a resounding defeat yesterday in two rulings from US District Judge Eumi Lee in the Northern District of California. Lee found that Apple can remove apps \u201cwith or without cause,\u201d as stipulated in the developer agreement. Lee wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\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 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\u2019s decision to remove the Musi app from the App Store did not breach the DPLA.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Musi argued that more was required of Apple because of other provisions in the agreement, such as one stipulating that Apple may stop offering an app download if it \u201creasonably believes,\u201d based on a human or systematic review, that the application infringes intellectual property rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAccording to Musi, Apple was required to (1) conduct a \u2018human and\/or systematic review\u2019 of YouTube\u2019s complaint, and (2) based on that review, form a reasonable belief that the Musi app infringed intellectual property rights,\u201d Lee wrote. \u201cThe problem with Musi\u2019s construction of the DPLA is that the \u2018reasonable belief\u2019 clause expressly does not \u2018limit[] the generality\u2019 of Apple\u2019s right to cease offering an application \u2018at any time, with or without cause.\u2019 When a contract\u2019s plain language expressly states that a clause is not limiting, a court should not construe the clause as a limitation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee granted Apple\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint. She ordered it to be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some Musi devotees have been able to keep using the app via workarounds or because they downloaded it before its removal from the App Store, discussions on the Reddit community<\/a> dedicated to Musi indicate. The app\u2019s interface has been described as utilitarian, letting users simply listen to music and make playlists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMusi claims not to host the music videos its users stream, instead emphasizing that these videos come from YouTube,\u201d a May 2024 Wired profile<\/a> said. \u201cThose videos appear within Musi\u2019s own barebones interface, but some flaunt their origins with watermarks from YouTube or Vevo. Users have to sit through video ads right when they open Musi and can then stream uninterrupted audio, but video ads play silently every few songs while the music continues.\u201d Launched in 2013<\/a> by two Canadian teenagers, Musi was reportedly downloaded more than 66 million times over a decade despite questions about its legality and the amounts artists are paid when a song streams via Musi instead of being played directly on YouTube.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Lee partially granted<\/a> Apple\u2019s motion for sanctions of Musi\u2019s law firm for a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), which requires that factual contentions have evidence to support them or \u201cwill likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee called this \u201cone of the rare cases in which Rule 11 sanctions are necessary and appropriate.\u201d Musi\u2019s complaint in general \u201cgives misleading impressions and stretches the limits of vigorous advocacy\u201d and crossed the line by claiming that Apple \u201cadmitted\u201d to relying on false evidence, Lee wrote. This claim advanced by Musi law firm Winston & Strawn \u201cis so factually baseless that it violates Rule 11.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee ordered the law firm to pay Apple\u2019s costs related to litigating the motion for sanctions. The order on sanctions also strikes the offending \u201cadmitted\u201d passage from Musi\u2019s first amended complaint, although that\u2019s moot now given that Apple won the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAfter 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,\u201d Lee wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the court is usually reluctant to issue Rule 11 sanctions, \u201cthis is not a case where counsel merely pressed a novel but unsuccessful legal position, or where a lack of factual support became clear in hindsight,\u201d Lee\u2019s order said. \u201cHere, Musi had the benefit of two months of discovery to develop a factual basis for its claims in the first amended complaint. Winston & Strawn drafted one of the core allegations in a manner that affirmatively misrepresents facts obtained in discovery to bolster Musi\u2019s claim that Apple acted in bad faith.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/cdn.arstechnica.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/musi-1152x648-1773782266.png\")
\n
Apple terms hold up, judge rules<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Law firm \u201cnot at liberty to make up facts\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Musi said it doesn\u2019t use YouTube API<\/h2>\n\n\n\n