Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc.
5:24-cv-06920
N.D. Cal.Jan 30, 2025Background
- Musi Inc. developed a music streaming app that allows users to stream publicly available content from YouTube and offered the app on Apple's App Store.
- Apple removed the Musi app from the App Store in September 2024 following repeated complaints from third parties (notably the IFPI, YouTube, and NMPA) alleging copyright and terms-of-service violations by Musi.
- Musi argued that it complied with YouTube's terms and responded to the complaints by disputing their merit, but failed to actually resolve them or engage with complainants in a timely manner.
- The dispute centered on the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA), which gives Apple broad discretion to remove apps, including "at any time, with or without cause."
- Musi sought a preliminary injunction requiring Apple to restore the Musi app pending litigation, claiming breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The court denied Musi's request for a preliminary injunction, finding Musi was unlikely to succeed on the merits and that the public interest weighed against issuing such relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | DPLA required Apple to have reasonable belief and conduct review before removal; Apple lacked cause | DPLA gives Apple explicit right to remove any app at any time with or without cause, with notice | No serious question raised; contract language unambiguous—Apple’s removal action permitted |
| Implied Covenant of Good Faith | Apple acted in bad faith by removing app without proper review or transparency | Express contract terms control; covenant cannot override explicit removal rights | No bad faith; implied covenant cannot restrict express contract rights |
| Likelihood of Success on Merits | Claims are plausible and supported by conduct requirements imposed on Apple | No likelihood of success due to DPLA's clear terms and Apple’s documented notice and basis | No likelihood of success; motion fails threshold inquiry |
| Public Interest | Injunction necessary to protect nearly 2 million developers, no real public harm | Strong public interest in protecting IP rights of third-party complainants | Public interest weighs against injunction due to unresolved, substantiated infringement claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard: must show likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (balancing of equities key in injunctive relief)
- Oasis W. Realty LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811 (elements of breach of contract under California law)
- Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal. 4th 342 (implied covenant of good faith cannot override express contract terms)
- Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (interpreting contract language with non-limiting clauses)