A US federal judge has dismissed with prejudice Musi's lawsuit against Apple, ruling that Apple could delist the free music streaming app with or without cause. The judge also sanctioned Musi's lawyers for making up facts in their claims. The decision upholds Apple's removal of the app from its App Store in September 2024.
Musi, a free music streaming app launched in 2013 by two Canadian teenagers, had garnered tens of millions of iPhone downloads by streaming music from YouTube without direct deals with copyright holders. The app displayed its own ads, removable for a $5.99 one-time fee, and enhanced YouTube content with proprietary technology. Apple removed Musi from the App Store in September 2024 following complaints, including from the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) alleging intellectual property infringement via YouTube's API, though Musi claimed it did not use the API and complied with YouTube's terms. No Android version exists for the app, which some users continue accessing via workarounds or prior downloads, as noted in Reddit discussions and a May 2024 Wired profile describing its utilitarian interface with silent video ads every few songs, some bearing YouTube or Vevo watermarks. Musi reported over 66 million downloads in a decade despite legality questions and artist payment concerns when streamed indirectly via the app rather than directly on YouTube. In a ruling from US District Judge Eumi Lee in the Northern District of California, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Lee emphasized the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA)'s plain language: “Apple may ‘cease marketing, offering, and allowing download by end-users of the [Musi app] at any time, with or without cause, by providing notice of termination.'” Apple provided the required notice, so no breach occurred, and other clauses like 'reasonable belief' of infringement do not limit this right. Additionally, Lee partially granted Apple's motion for sanctions against Musi's law firm Winston & Strawn under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) for factual misrepresentations. The firm claimed Apple “admitted” relying on false NMPA evidence about API use, misinterpreting a Sony Music Entertainment email stating Sony worked with YouTube to remove API access from Musi, but the app accessed content through other technological means. Lee ruled this allegation was “factually baseless,” as receiving inconsistent evidence does not prove knowledge of falsity. Lawyers Jennifer Golinveaux, Samantha Looker, and Jeff Wilkerson represent Musi; the firm must pay Apple's costs for the sanctions motion. Lee called Musi's fee request for defending sanctions “audacious” given Apple's prevailing position.
