Apple Seeks Sanctions Against Winston & Strawn in App Store Suit

Winston & Strawn and its client Musi Inc. should be sanctioned for including false allegations in a lawsuit accusing Apple Inc. of breach of contract by removing an app from the App Store, Apple told a federal California judge.

Musi’s first amended complaint advanced a “baseless conspiracy theory” that Apple plotted to eliminate the music-streaming app to benefit “friends” in the music industry despite discovery conducted before it was filed disproving the claim, Apple said in is motion for sanctions filed Monday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Apple asked Judge Eumi K. Lee to dismiss or strike Musi’s complaint and order Winston & Strawn to pay Apple’s legal fees related to the sanctions motion.

Musi’s counsel at Winston didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Musi sued Apple in October, alleging the app’s September removal was based on “unsubstantiated” intellectual property complaints. Musi brought claims of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Apple’s motion focuses on three allegedly false or misleading claims in Musi’s amended complaint: that Apple’s 2024 call with YouTube was part of a “backchannel scheme” to remove the app, Apple “admitted” it “knew” that “evidence” it relied on was false, and Musi omitted its “fraudulent” conduct in the app dispute process.

Musi’s allegation that Apple reached out to YouTube between May and July 2024 specifically to solicit it to resurrect a dormant complaint has no factual support, Apple said. Witness testimony demonstrated Apple’s July call with YouTube was to determine the status of YouTube’s existing complaint and discuss complaints brought by others alleging Musi was violating YouTube’s terms of service, according to the motion.

Further, Musi—specifically, Winston partner Michael Elkin—made false representations to Apple that it’d communicated with YouTube about its complaint, Apple wrote, saying discovery revealed there were no communications between the two at the time.

Musi’s claim Apple knowingly relied on false evidence that it violated YouTube’s terms of service described Apple witness testimony as an “unequivocal” admission when it was “nothing close,” Apple said. To the contrary, according to the motion, the witness said, “individuals at Apple were told that Google had removed the API access from Musi but the app was still somehow using Google’s services in a way that was more difficult for Google to action.”

And Musi’s suggestion that all complaints other than YouTube’s “cooked up” one had been resolved when it was removed from the App Store “plainly conflicts” with the record because multiple complaints were still pending, Apple said. The amended complaint misleadingly omitted substantial evidence about Musi’s conduct, the motion said, including a “particularly egregious instance” when Musi impersonated a representative from complainant Universal Music Group to regain access to the App Store.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP represents Apple.

The case is Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 24-cv-06920, motion for sanctions filed 5/5/25.