Musi Lawsuit vs. Apple: Dismissal, Sanctions, and Appeal

Musi’s lawsuit against Apple ended in dismissal on March 16, 2026, when a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that Apple’s Developer Program License Agreement let it remove the free music-streaming app from the App Store “at any time, with or without cause.” Judge Eumi K. Lee dismissed the case with prejudice, sanctioned Musi’s law firm for a false factual claim in the amended complaint, and denied Musi’s request for its own fees. Musi has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.¹

Why Apple Removed Musi

Musi streamed music videos hosted on YouTube through its own interface, without licensing deals with labels or publishers.² According to Apple’s filings, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry complained to Apple in July 2023 that Musi infringed its members’ copyrights and violated YouTube’s terms of service, then followed with at least six more demands to remove the app between September 2023 and May 2024. The National Music Publishers Association added its own complaint in September 2024, describing Musi as an app that “leeches its content offerings from YouTube’s API to avoid paying copyright licensing fees.”³

The immediate trigger came on July 29, 2024, when an entity identified as “YouTube Legal” sent Apple a five-word complaint: “violating YouTube Terms of Service.” Apple notified Musi on August 8 and told it to resolve the matter with YouTube. Musi said it tried repeatedly to reach YouTube without response.⁴ Apple pulled the app on September 24, 2024. Because Musi was iOS-only, the delisting effectively shut it down.⁵⁶

What Musi Claimed in Court

On October 2, 2024, Musi Inc. sued Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-06920).⁷ The complaint raised two claims. The first was breach of contract: Musi argued Apple had violated specific provisions of the Developer Program License Agreement (Schedule 1 § 6.3, Schedule 2 § 7.3, and Schedule 3 § 7.3) by removing the app without first forming a “reasonable belief” that it infringed third-party intellectual property. The second was breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on the argument that Apple never made YouTube substantiate its claim and ignored Musi’s attempts to resolve the dispute.⁸

Musi sought an injunction restoring the app, plus compensatory and consequential damages including lost profits.⁸ Judge Lee denied Musi’s motion for a preliminary injunction on January 30, 2025.⁹

In an amended complaint, Musi went further, alleging that Apple had “secretly orchestrated” complaints from rights holders including YouTube, Sony Music, and the NMPA to “appease its music industry partners,” and had “solicited” YouTube’s complaint.¹⁰

Why the Judge Dismissed the Case

The ruling turned on the plain language of the DPLA. One provision states that Apple may “cease marketing, offering, and allowing download by end-users of the Licensed Applications at any time, with or without cause, by providing notice of termination.”¹¹ Musi argued that a separate clause in the same section, allowing removal when Apple “reasonably believes” an app infringes intellectual property, imposed a duty to investigate before acting.

Judge Lee disagreed. The IP clause is introduced with the phrase “without limiting the generality of this Section 6.3,” which she read as making it an illustrative example rather than a restriction on Apple’s broader authority. Treating it as a limitation, she wrote, would strip the “at any time, with or without cause” language of any meaning.¹¹

The good-faith claim failed for a related reason. Under California law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot bar a party from doing what the contract expressly permits. The DPLA let Apple remove apps for any reason on notice, and the court found Apple had given the required notice.¹¹ The judge added that Apple was acting amid unresolved complaints from multiple rights holders, and the implied covenant does not require a platform to “side with a developer” in that situation.¹⁰

Sanctions Against Musi’s Law Firm

The same day, Judge Lee partially granted Apple’s motion for sanctions against Winston & Strawn, Musi’s law firm, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). The target was a passage in the amended complaint stating that Apple “knew that this ‘evidence’ was false, as it has since admitted,” referring to NMPA claims about Musi’s use of the YouTube API. The judge found no such admission in the record and wrote that “claiming that Apple ‘admitted’ that it knowingly relied on false evidence conveys that discovery yielded damning evidence, but it did not.”¹²

Lee struck the offending passage and ordered Winston & Strawn to pay Apple’s legal costs tied to the sanctions motion.¹ She described the amended complaint more broadly as “not the paradigm of candor,” saying it “gave ‘misleading impressions’ and ‘stretched the limits of vigorous advocacy.'”¹³ Musi had asked for its own attorneys’ fees for defending against the sanctions motion. The judge called the request “audacious” and denied it, finding Apple’s motion had “substantial merit.”

The Fabricated Email Allegation

Alongside the contract fight, Apple accused Musi of fabricating a December 2019 email to make it appear that Universal Music had withdrawn an earlier complaint. The email, purportedly from Jason Miller, Universal Music’s Senior Director of Content Protection, said changes to the app “appear to satisfy our concerns.” According to a declaration from Universal’s Associate Director of Legal, Danielle B. Hardy, Miller had no record of sending it, the sender’s address was not a valid Universal Music Group address, and Universal’s complaint was never resolved. Hardy stated it appeared “the app developer created a false email to misrepresent compliance.”¹⁴

The Appeal and Whether Musi Is Back

The case was formally terminated on April 1, 2026.⁷ Musi filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 6, 2026 (Case No. 26-2892).⁹ As of mid-2026, the appeal is pending and the app remains unavailable on the App Store with no confirmed timeline for restoration. There is no Android version, because Musi was exclusively an iOS app.⁶

1
Ars Technica. Judge Upholds Apple Delisting of Free Musi App That Streams Songs From YouTube
2
Wired. Free Music Streaming App Musi: Too Good to Be True?
3
Complete Music Update. Labels Told Apple Six Times to Kick Musi Out of App Store, New Legal Filing Reveals
4
Music Ally. Musi Sues Apple After Its App Was Removed From iOS App Store
5
PPC Land. Apple Removes Popular Music App Musi Over YouTube Dispute
6
FreeYourMusic. Musi Alternatives
7
CourtListener. Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc.
8
PPC Land. Musi v. Apple Complaint
9
PACER Monitor. Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc.
10
Buzko Legal. Musi v. Apple: When “At Any Time, With or Without Cause” Means What It Says
11
Justia. Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc., Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
12
TorrentFreak. Court Dismisses Musi’s Apple Lawsuit, Sanctions Law Firm for Baseless Claims
13
Complete Music Update. Apple Wins Legal Battle With Musi After Judge Rules Music App’s Lawsuit Was “Not the Paradigm of Candor”
14
Complete Music Update. Musi Faked Email From Universal Exec in Attempt to Stop App Store Ban, Says Apple Lawyer