Rave has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the iPhone maker of deliberately removing its shared video-viewing app from the App Store to protect Apple’s own competing feature, SharePlay.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in New Jersey, escalates another major legal challenge to Apple’s control over its tightly regulated App Store ecosystem, an issue that has increasingly drawn scrutiny from regulators, developers, and courts across multiple countries.
Rave, headquartered in Ontario, Canada, is seeking reinstatement to the App Store as well as what it described as “hundreds of millions of dollars” in damages.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 20 (June 8 – Sept 5, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
The company alleges Apple removed the app under the pretext of policy violations, while the real motive was to eliminate competition for SharePlay, Apple’s native co-viewing feature introduced in 2021.
“Apple’s pretextual removal of Rave from ?the App Store has ?harmed consumers significantly by ?limiting choice and effectively preventing Apple customers from co-viewing and connecting with non-Apple customers,” Michael Pazaratz, CEO of Rave, said in a press release.
“Apple’s actions ?denied users access to a product they enjoy, disrupted the communities built ?on Rave and ?impaired Rave’s ability to compete fairly based on the strength of its product.”
Rave’s platform allows users across different operating systems, including iOS, Android, Windows, and macOS, to watch videos simultaneously while chatting in real time. The company argues that cross-platform functionality made it uniquely valuable because Apple’s SharePlay primarily operates within Apple’s own ecosystem.
According to the complaint, Apple informed Rave in 2025 that the app was removed for “dishonest or fraudulent activity.” But Rave claims the action was anti-competitive and designed to strengthen Apple’s dominance in digital social entertainment.
The lawsuit also strikes at one of the most controversial aspects of Apple’s business model: its control over app distribution and monetization on iPhones. Rave says its advertising-driven model generated little commission revenue for Apple because it relied less on in-app purchases, making the company commercially less valuable to the App Store economy while still competing with Apple’s own product offerings.
Apple strongly rejected the allegations.
In a statement, the company said Rave was removed after “repeated guideline violations,” including allegedly hosting and sharing pornographic and pirated material as well as receiving complaints involving CSAM, shorthand for child sexual abuse material. Apple said it communicated those violations to the developer multiple times before removing the app.
Rave forcefully denied the allegations.
A spokesperson for the company described the CSAM accusations as “baseless” and said the company maintained zero tolerance for illegal or exploitative content. The firm accused Apple of weaponizing App Store enforcement rules to suppress a competing cross-platform service.
The dispute lands at a time when Apple is already battling mounting antitrust pressure globally over allegations that it uses control of the App Store to disadvantage rivals, extract excessive commissions, and favor its own services.
The most prominent fight remains Apple’s years-long legal war with Epic Games, creator of the video game Fortnite. That case, which began in 2020, challenged Apple’s requirement that developers use Apple’s payment system for digital purchases, allowing the company to collect commissions of up to 30%.
The legal battle triggered major changes to Apple’s business practices and helped fuel broader regulatory action in the United States and Europe. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court sent parts of the Epic dispute back to federal court in California, ensuring the broader battle over Apple’s App Store dominance remains unresolved.
Rave’s lawsuit now adds another dimension to the growing scrutiny. Unlike Epic, which focused heavily on payment systems and commissions, Rave’s case centers more directly on allegations that Apple used platform control to eliminate a product competitor. That distinction could prove significant because regulators globally have become increasingly focused on whether dominant technology companies unfairly prioritize their own products over third-party developers operating on their platforms.
However, Apple has argued that strict App Store controls are necessary to maintain user safety, privacy, and content moderation standards. But developers increasingly believe those same rules can be selectively enforced in ways that disadvantage rivals to Apple’s own services.
The inclusion of allegations involving pirated content and CSAM could become especially consequential in court. Apple appears to be framing the dispute as a safety and compliance issue rather than a competition issue, while Rave is portraying the accusations as a post-hoc justification for anti-competitive conduct.
The legal and reputational stakes are therefore unusually high for both sides. Rave also said it has launched similar antitrust actions against Apple in Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands, and Russia, signaling a coordinated global legal strategy.
The international nature of the dispute mirrors the increasingly worldwide backlash against large technology platforms as governments and developers push for stricter oversight of digital gatekeepers.
For Apple, the case threatens further erosion of one of its most lucrative and strategically important businesses. The App Store generates billions of dollars annually not only through commissions but also by reinforcing customer loyalty across Apple’s broader ecosystem of devices and services.