Rave sues Apple in U.S. antitrust case over App Store removal of its co-viewing app
The Facts
- Rave filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in U.S. federal court in New Jersey on Thursday.
- Rave alleges Apple removed its co-viewing app from the App Store after Apple introduced SharePlay, a competing watch-together feature.
- Rave is seeking reinstatement to the App Store and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
- Rave is based in Ontario, Canada, and its app lets users watch and discuss video content together across multiple platforms including iOS, Android, Windows and macOS.
- The app remains available on Android and Windows, even though it was removed from Apple's App Store.
- Rave says Apple's actions also included revoking its developer credentials and labeling its Mac app as malware.
- Rave has also announced or filed related antitrust cases against Apple in four other countries: Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands and Russia.
- A central unresolved issue is Apple's justification for removing the app: Rave says Apple cited fraud or content-moderation concerns without clearly explaining the violations, while Apple had not publicly responded in the Reuters report.
How left and right are reading this
- Both agree
- A platform owner’s unexplained removal of a competing app, especially after launching a similar feature, can reduce user choice and raise serious questions about how that power is exercised.
- They split on
- Less a disagreement than a question of emphasis: the concrete loss of access and cross-platform choice for users and a smaller rival, versus the unresolved basis Apple gave for sidelining a competing app.
Context
What does Rave's app do?
Rave makes a co-viewing app that lets users watch and discuss video content together, and sources describe it as working across iOS, Android, Windows and macOS Reuters,Mobile World Live.
What is Rave asking the court to do?
Rave is asking for its app to be restored to Apple's App Store and is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages Reuters,Economic Times.
Why could this case matter beyond the two companies?
Rave argues the removal limited consumer choice in co-viewing services and affected a cross-platform alternative that worked beyond Apple's ecosystem, making the case relevant to broader questions about app-store competition and switching between devices news.bloomberglaw.c…,Mobile World Live.
View all 16 sources
Wire services (3)
Independent coverage (13)
About these frames
See this differently than someone you know would? Two ways to keep it going.
The dial works on any URL — paste an article you read elsewhere this week.