Image Credit: Rave
At Apple’s request, a judge has agreed to move Rave, Inc’s lawsuit over copying features to the Northern District of California. It’s a blow for Rave as it potentially gives Apple a home-field advantage.
Rave is arguing that Apple sherlocked its streaming app and then blocked it from the App Store. This isn’t what happened and it is sidestepping serious allegations against Rave, but that is the case that was brought in New Jersey in May 2026.
Now according to Bloomberg, Judge William J. Martini has agreed to Apple’s request for the case to be tried in the Northern District of California instead.
As noted in the judge’s full filing, a key reason for the change is that Rave’s allegations cover a period before Apple revoked its developer status. Therefore, Rave is subject to a clause in the developer agreement that specifies “any litigation… will take place in the Northern District of California.”
It’s not clear why it has taken from May 2026 to November 2026 for this issue to be raised. Nor why it took a judge’s ruling that Rave was bound by this condition.
Nonetheless, the issue has now been raised and the case has been transferred to California. Judge Martini reportedly also concluded that California was more appropriate given how the suit was against Apple, which is based there.
This decision does not affect Rave’s other suits against Apple. The Canadian company also simultaneously sued it over the same issue in Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands, and Russia.
What Rave says
Rave’s stated position is that Apple removed it from the App Store because its streaming features compete with Apple’s own SharePlay. The accusation is that Apple does this to competitors.
“As long as Apple’s ‘gatekeeper’ power remains unchecked, no developer operating within Apple’s ecosystem can ever be secure,” says Rave’s original complaint filing. “When a dominant platform removes competing products without a fair process or accountability, all developers are disincentivized to invest in the sort of innovation that builds businesses, creates jobs and benefits consumers.”
It is certainly true that Apple is known for, to be generous, adding features to its apps that appeared first in rival ones. It is not true, however, that Apple then bans those rivals.
Then it appears that none of Rave’s filings detail how its various streams had little or no moderation. This led to pornography being streamed, and potentially to users as young as 13 being exposed to it.
Neither Apple nor Rave, Inc have commented on the change of court. It’s not known yet when the Northern District of California will hear arguments in this case.
Source: www.appleinsider.com
Source link
