Introduction

For developers, the App Store and Google Play are essential gateways to users.

But when something goes wrong — whether it’s a competitor mimicking your app or your app being removed with little explanation — the process for resolving these issues can be unclear, confusing, and difficult to navigate.

This guide breaks down the most common types of disputes developers face, including those with competitors over intellectual property and those with the platforms themselves over alleged policy or sanctions violations. It explains how Apple and Google handle these issues internally, what legal claims are available when internal processes fail, and how courts are beginning to push back on unchecked platform discretion.

Drawing from our firm’s experience representing developers in disputes against both Apple and Google, we also highlight effective strategies for responding to removal notices, escalating claims, and protecting your business when your app is at risk. Whether you’re considering a trademark complaint, responding to one, or facing an unexpected termination, this guide outlines what to expect and how to fight back.

I. Disputes with Competitors

When apps compete for names, branding, or functionality, intellectual property disputes are common, particularly over trademarks. These cases often involve similar app names, logos, or user interfaces, which can create confusion about who created what.

For example
Imagine there is an app on the App Store named “Home Repair Pro” that gives tips on DIY home repair. At some point, the app’s developer notices a competitor’s app called “Home Repair Bro” with a similar logo and content. The developer of the original app can file a complaint through the App Store against the competitor on the basis of trademark infringement.

A. Key Issues

1. Does the developer have a trademark application or registration?

First, does the original developer hold a trademark application or registration? A trademark registration in the U.S. or another country significantly strengthens the claim by providing direct proof of legal ownership. Without it, the developer would need to show that it was the first to use the mark in commerce and that the mark has acquired distinctiveness.

2. Who has priority of use?

In the U.S., trademark rights are based on first use, not first registration. That means a developer can still have enforceable rights without registering a mark, but proving it can be more difficult. Without a federal registration, the burden falls on the developer to establish priority using business records, advertisements, user testimonials, dated sales or launch materials, or other supporting evidence.

3. Is there actual infringement?

Even with a valid mark and priority of use, the developer must also show actual infringement. That turns on whether the accused app is likely to cause confusion among average consumers about the source of the product.[1] The test doesn’t require the names to be identical, only that a reasonable consumer might think the apps come from the same company.

For example
If “Home Repair Bro” uses a nearly identical logo, app layout, and color scheme as “Home Repair Pro,” and users mistakenly download it thinking it is from the same developer, that would likely support an infringement claim. But if the similarities are minor or the overall impression differs, there may be no legal violation.

4. How does the App Store handle these complaints?

When Apple receives a trademark complaint, it typically forwards the allegation to the accused developer. Rather than make an immediate decision, Apple usually gives the parties a chance to resolve the issue between themselves.[2] The accused developer is asked to provide a written assurance addressing the complaint, with supporting documentation where possible. Apple accepts assurances that the app does not infringe, that the parties are in ongoing discussions, that permission was granted, or that other compelling evidence justifies dismissal of the complaint.[3]

5. What if the parties can’t resolve the dispute? Will the App Store take sides?

While the App Store Content Dispute page suggests that trademark disputes are primarily left for the parties to resolve, court filings and anecdotal reports indicate that, at least in some cases, Apple will put the onus on the accused developer, informing it that if “the matter is not resolved shortly, Apple may be forced to pull [the] application(s) from the App Store.”[4] This effectively creates a ticking clock: the accused developer must prove non-infringement, negotiate a settlement, or risk removal from the App Store.

6. How does Google Play handle trademark disputes?

Google Play’s process for trademark complaints is broadly similar. A trademark owner can report an infringement by submitting a policy violation notice. Google notifies the accused developer and, like Apple, encourages both sides to resolve the matter directly. In our experience, Google will also inform the accused developer that if the issue is not resolved, it may remove the app from the Play Store.[5]

This dynamic creates leverage for the complainant. Once removal is on the table, the complainant may ignore settlement attempts, knowing that inaction could result in its competitor’s app being delisted. Independent developers — especially when facing larger, well-resourced companies — are often forced into a narrow set of choices: rebrand, litigate, or risk losing access to the platform entirely.

From the firm’s practice: Sarafan v. Google[6]

Our firm represented Sarafan, the developer of the video app Reely, in a dispute that underscored the imbalance developers face when platforms forward complaints without oversight. The situation began when Meta, the parent company of Instagram, claimed that Reely’s logo resembled the logo used for Meta’s Reels product. Google, following its standard process, forwarded the complaint to Sarafan and advised the company to resolve the issue directly with Meta.

Sarafan promptly contacted Meta to discuss the matter, but Meta refused to respond. Google, rather than investigate the merits of the complaint or require Meta to participate in the dialogue, removed Reely from the Play Store. Meta never had to defend its position, and Sarafan — despite attempting to engage in good faith — lost access to its app and its users overnight, all without any finding of infringement.

When Sarafan notified Google that Meta had refused to engage, Google replied that it was “not in a position to mediate trademark disputes.” But by removing the app based solely on an unverified claim, Google had effectively done just that — taken a side without due process.

Given the stakes, we filed suit against both Meta and Google, challenging the validity of Meta’s complaint and the arbitrary nature of Google’s takedown. We also sought emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), which required Google to respond within days. The TRO not only applied immediate legal pressure, it also shifted the balance of power. With litigation underway and the TRO pending, we were able to negotiate directly with both Google and Meta, ultimately securing a written agreement that compelled both parties to take the necessary steps to reinstate Reely (albeit under a different name). By putting those commitments in writing, we prevented further delays and ensured the app’s return to the Play Store.

Some legal scholars have criticized these platform-run dispute systems for their lack of transparency — referring to them as a “black box.” Whereas courts operate through formal pleadings and written decisions, Apple and Google run internal processes that offer no visibility. Developers are left navigating a system where outcomes are privately decided, often with no explanation.

B. Unsatisfied With the Outcome — What Claims Can You Bring Against These Platforms?

If a developer is dissatisfied with an app store’s decision, it can escalate the dispute by filing a lawsuit. This section explores legal actions available.

1. Temporary restraining order

A TRO is an emergency measure that can be used to prevent an app’s removal or restore it while a lawsuit is ongoing. As discussed in Sarafan v. Google, filing for a TRO pressured Google and Meta to engage in discussions far sooner than standard litigation would have. Similarly, in Smart Space v. Apple, the developer sought a TRO to stop Apple from prematurely removing its app while it was negotiating with the complainant.

2. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

A claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may also be available. Contract law imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing, preventing one party from using contractual discretion in a way that unfairly deprives the other of the contract’s benefits. While Google and Apple have broad authority to remove apps, exercising that power arbitrarily or without due process may be actionable. In Sarafan v. Google, we argued that Google acted in bad faith by removing Reely without justification. Rather than assessing the merits of Meta’s complaint, Google relied solely on the accusation, effectively rubber-stamping the removal. This deprived Sarafan of its contractual right to distribute its app on Google Play, violating the Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA).[10]

3. Intentional interference with contractual relations

Developers may also assert a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. Removing an app disrupts the developer’s relationships with users, advertisers, employees, and business partners. If a platform knowingly removes an app based on a questionable complaint, severing those contracts, it may be liable. In Sarafan v. Google, we alleged that Google’s actions severed Sarafan’s relationships with customers, investors, and employees.

4. Intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage

A related cause of action is intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Even in the absence of formal contracts, developers rely on continued growth and new business opportunities. If a platform’s actions wrongfully undermine these future prospects, a claim for interference may arise. In Sarafan v. Google, we argued that the app’s removal prevented the renewal of paid subscriptions from customers, cutting off a reliable future revenue stream. If the platform’s interference is reckless rather than intentional, negligent interference claims may apply.

5. Violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts. A developer can challenge an app store’s actions under this statute if they result in unjustified economic harm. In Sarafan v. Google, we argued that Meta’s submission of an unfounded complaint and Google’s removal of Reely without justification violated the UCL. By blindly enforcing Meta’s complaint, Google acted as both judge and executioner, without providing Sarafan with a meaningful opportunity to defend itself.

6. Cancellation of Trademark Registrations

Finally, the accused developer may seek cancellation of the complainant’s trademark registration. If the trademark is not genuinely in use, is non-distinctive, or is otherwise invalid, cancellation may be appropriate. In Sarafan v. Google, we argued that Meta’s REELS trademark was non-distinctive and incapable of identifying the services of any single company, and therefore should be cancelled.

C. Practical Recommendations

The following two sections outline practical recommendations for developers that find themselves in need of making or defending a complaint for infringement on Apple’s or Google’s platform.

1. For complainants: how to file an effective IP complaint with Google or Apple

If your IP is being infringed upon, how should you file a complaint with Google or Apple to be sure that it is effective?

Use the official dispute channels‍

‍Both Apple and Google provide formal mechanisms for IP complaints. On Apple’s App Store, submit the App Store Content Dispute form or App Name Dispute form (available on Apple’s website). On Google Play, report the content by submitting a request (accessible via the Google Play Help Center).

Provide a clear, detailed explanation of the conflict with supporting documentation

Clearly explain why the other app’s use of your trademark is infringing and include supporting documentation. Be specific about the elements causing confusion, such as similar logos, branding, or app functionality.

For example
We own the trademark “Home Repair Pro” (U.S. Reg. 1234567, registered 2020, first use 2018) for a home improvement mobile app. Attached is the registration certificate. The app “Home Repair Bro” by XYZ Inc. uses a confusingly similar name and logo while offering the same service (DIY home repair tips). Screenshots of both app logos and listings are attached. We have also included customer emails mistakenly assuming the apps are related. We have not authorized their use of our mark.

Reference App Store and Play Store Rules and Guidelines

Beyond trademark law, both Apple and Google have policies against copycat apps and confusing branding. Cite relevant guidelines to strengthen your complaint.

For example
Apple's Guideline 4.1 states: "Do not simply copy the latest popular app . . . or make minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own." Using such policies in your complaint reinforces that the infringement violates not just trademark law, but platform rules as well.

Follow up diligently with Apple/Google

‍After submitting, you should receive a confirmation email. Apple or Google may acknowledge the complaint and notify the other developer. If you receive no response within a week, follow up through Apple’s trademark team contact or Google’s support channels.

2. For respondents: a developer’s Miranda Rights — what you should do (and not do)

If you’re on the receiving end of an IP infringement notice, your response is critical. Think of this as the developer’s version of Miranda rights — steps to avoid self-incrimination and protect your app’s future. You have the right to defend your app!

Do not ignore the notice

Failing to respond by the deadline (if one is given) can be fatal. Apple and Google may remove an app by default if the accused developer stays silent. Always acknowledge the notice and let the platform know you are addressing it.

Investigate the claim

Check if the complainant in fact has a valid trademark or IP right. Search the USPTO’s Trademark Database for any cited mark. If they claim prior use, Internet archives like the WayBack Machine can also help you verify any websites the accuser sends to you as proof that they have priority of use.

Admit nothing (you have the right to remain silent)

Be careful in all communications with both the platform and the complaining party, as anything you say can and will be used against you (probably). Avoid any statements that could be construed as an admission that you infringed, no matter how innocent they might sound.

For example
Do not say: “We didn’t realize the logos looked so similar, we’ll change the name.” Even apologizing for a “mistake” might be recorded by Apple/Google and later cited as evidence that you acknowledged a violation. We’ve litigated against Apple, and we know it routinely defends good faith and fair dealing claims by arguing that “honest mistakes” are not actionable. It is wise to carefully think out your responses or even have a lawyer craft your responses to avoid implicating language.

Don’t Rush to Rebrand

Do not hastily volunteer to make changes like renaming your app or disabling a feature; this could seriously impact your app. Rebranding can be used against you later. If you voluntarily change your app’s name or logo, the complainant could argue that your original branding was infringing all along. This could make it harder to fight back in future disputes. Instead, state that you are “evaluating the complaint” without committing to anything immediately.

Preserve evidence

Save all correspondence with the platform and the complainant. If your app gets removed, you might lose access to user reviews or analytics. Consider exporting those, as they could become evidence of your app’s popularity and the harm caused by removal. Also, document the impact (drops in user counts, revenue loss, etc.) in case you need to quantify harm later.

You have the right to an attorney

An attorney can assess the strength of the complaint, craft a solid response, and negotiate on your behalf. Platforms might take a complaint more seriously if they see lawyers are involved on both sides, which could make them more cautious before choosing a side.

Moreover, if a settlement is proposed, having counsel review is vital. Do not sign anything or even make informal promises (“Okay, I’ll never use that term again”) without legal advice, as those can bind you later. An attorney can make sure that there is a clear path to resolution, because once you sign any agreement, your options will be severely limited.

From the firm’s practice
In Sarafan v. Google, we made sure that the agreement set out a clear set of actions in the correct order that would ensure Sarafan’s app would be reinstated.

You have the right to due process — follow (and use) platform procedures

Each app store has formal processes for these disputes — use them.

• For Apple, there is an App Store Content Dispute form.
• For Google, use the forms on the Play Console Help page.

Adhering to the platform’s process ensures nothing falls through the cracks. If you negotiated directly with your competitor and resolved the issue, inform the platform immediately so it knows the matter is settled and will not remove your app.

Remember, you do not have to accept the platform’s decision

If Apple or Google removes your app unfairly, you can challenge it in court. The app stores hold immense power, but they are not legal authorities. Filing a lawsuit — or even threatening one — can push the platform or complainant to the negotiating table.

II. Disputes with Apple and Google

Not all disputes involve competitors. Sometimes, the platform itself becomes the adversary. Apple and Google can suspend developer accounts or remove apps for alleged policy violations. As app stores strictly enforce their guidelines, legitimate apps are often caught in the crossfire.

Note that both Apple’s and Google’s developer agreements provide for the resolution of disputes under California law and in California state or federal court. For this reason, we analyze the application of California law here.

A. App Store: Termination and Suspension Grounds

The agreements a developer signs with Apple include the Developer Program License Agreement (“DPLA”) and Apple Developer Agreement (“ADA”), which purport to give Apple broad discretion to suspend or terminate developer accounts or remove apps.

1. Fraudulent or dishonest conduct: connected accounts and guidelines violations

DPLA Section 3.2(f) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, misleading, fraudulent, improper, or dishonest acts or business practices” related to an app. In Apple’s most recent Transparency Report, violations of DPLA Section 3.2(f) accounted for nearly all (99.9%) account terminations. In other words, Apple relies almost exclusively on this broad clause when terminating developers.

However, this provision is vague and applied inconsistently, making it difficult for developers to challenge enforcement actions.

Because DPLA Section 3.2(f) violations are by far the main reason developer accounts are terminated, there are several different ways Apple can allege a DPLA Section 3.2(f) violation: alleging the existence of connected accounts and/or referring to a violation of its Guidelines.

Connected Accounts

‍Apple may ban an account if it determines that the account is connected to previously terminated accounts.

For example
If Developer X was banned and Apple detects a link — such as a past collaboration — Developer Y may also be terminated, even if it had nothing to do with Developer X’s termination.

This has led to the termination of innocent developers. For example, an account may be flagged simply because an employee once worked for a banned developer.

In our experience, Apple does not disclose which account triggered the “connected” designation, making appeals nearly impossible. This is an issue that has been noted by other developers as well.[7]

This can create serious risks for developers. If Apple bans a developer for being “associated” with a previously terminated account but provides no details, the developer has few options to dispute the claim.

Guidelines Violations

Apple claims to remove apps that violate its App Review Guidelines, either for individual violations or repeated noncompliance. The most common violations include:

• Guideline 4.0 (Design Violations). Apple cites “design” violations more than any other guideline, often targeting apps with minimal functionality, poor UI, or those failing to meet Apple's evolving aesthetic standards.
• Guideline 4.3 (Spam). Repeated submissions of similar apps, re-skins, or apps with little differentiation can trigger removals.
• Guideline 4.1 (Copycats). Apps perceived to mimic well-known services can be flagged.
• Guideline 2.3.7 (App Name & Keywords Violations). Apple bans misleading metadata, including apps using popular app names in descriptions.
• Guideline 5.6 (Developer Code of Conduct). Apple cites Guideline 5.6 to require developer honesty and integrity but, in our experience, Apple may invoke it as an additional justification for termination after the fact.

2. Sanctions-related grounds

Apple purports to rely on DPLA Section 11.2 and 14.8 to terminate or suspend a developer account for sanctions-related issues.

DPLA Section 11.2

The clause prohibits apps that “facilitate dealings” with sanctioned parties, but Apple does not define what qualifies as “facilitation.” Nor is it clear what sanctions regimes are relevant. Apple appears to interpret these ambiguities as granting it broad discretion.

For example
Apple may claim that it can terminate an account if the developer or any affiliated entity is subject to sanctions in any country where App Store Connect operates, and not just in the U.S.
Similarly, if your app shows content posted by sanctioned entities, Apple may interpret that as “facilitating” dealings with those entities.

If Apple terminates or suspends an account under DPLA Section 11.2, you may be able to challenge that decision. The challenge’s nature could depend on:

• The designation itself: whether the developer or a business partner is actually on a sanctions list.
• What constitutes “sanctions or other restrictions”: Apple may argue that even non-blocking U.S. sanctions justify removal, but developers could counter that this overextends the agreement’s intended scope.
• What “facilitation” means: it could be interpreted narrowly, i.e., that the app’s purpose is to facilitate prohibited dealings; it could also be construed broadly as covering any sort of interactions, even indirect ones.

Since U.S. courts have not yet ruled on this provision, the enforceability of Apple’s broad interpretation remains uncertain.

DPLA Section 14.8

The provision has two subsections:

• DPLA Section 14.8(A) prohibits developers from using or transferring Apple software in embargoed areas or “for the facilitation of dealings” with sanctioned parties.
• DPLA Section 14.8(B) requires developers to certify that neither they nor their affiliates are subject to sanctions.

Apple may use DPLA Section 14.8 to argue that any involvement with a sanctioned entity violates the agreement, justifying termination. However, Apple’s discretion is not absolute: the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is read into every contract, prohibiting arbitrary and unfair enforcement.

3. Other grounds: catch-all provisions

In our experience, Apple is likely to argue that Section 2.8 of the DPLA and Section 10 of the ADA give Apple the absolute discretion to terminate or suspend a developer account at any time and for any reason. Per Apple, these clauses do not require Apple to justify its termination decision, thus preventing developers from contesting it.

However, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may allow you to challenge Apple’s discretionary termination as abusive, particularly if Apple does not refer to Section 2.8 of the DPLA or Section 10 of the ADA in its termination notice. Developers are increasingly invoking this covenant to challenge Apple’s claim to unfettered discretion.

From the firm’s practice
Our firm has extensive experience contesting Apple’s decisions in similar cases, pushing back against Apple’s claims that Section 2.8 of the DPLA and Section 10 of the ADA give it unlimited discretion to remove apps or terminate accounts. In our ongoing cases, we argue that terminations made arbitrarily, with improper motives, or without proper investigation exceed Apple's contractual authority.

B. Google Play: Termination and Suspension Grounds

The DDA purports to provide Google with rights that are very similar to those under Apple’s DPLA and ADA. Google claims it may remove an app or terminate a developer account if the developer or its affiliates come under sanctions. Similarly, if sanctioned parties post content on your app, Google claims that it may take adverse action against your app or account.

1. General grounds for adverse action

The DDA contains a number of provisions that give Google termination and suspension powers.

• DDA Section 8.3(a) purportedly allows Google to suspend or terminate an app or account if its content violates any applicable law, including sanctions regulations.
• DDA Section 8.3(d) purportedly allows Google to remove an app when it determines that the app could create liability for Google or have a negative economic, reputational, or security-related impact, even if the app does not violate any actual law.‍
• DDA Section 10.3(e) mirrors DDA 8.3(d), purportedly allowing Google to terminate the developer under the same broad circumstances.‍
• DDA Section 16.5 requires developers to comply with U.S. and international sanctions laws and to ensure that their apps do not cause Google to violate those laws.‍
• DDA Section 10.3 purportedly allows Google to terminate any developer with written notice, similar to Apple's discretion under Section 2.8 of the DPLA and Section 10 of the ADA. This supposedly gives Google sweeping authority to remove apps or accounts based on perceived risks, making enforcement unpredictable.

Case example re DDA Section 8.3(d): Spy Phone Labs LLC v. Google Inc.
In Spy Phone Labs LLC v. Google Inc., the court denied Google’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s good faith and fair dealing claim. Google argued that it had broad discretion under the DDA Takedown Section (currently Section 8 of the DDA) to remove apps at will. However, Spy Phone Labs alleged selective enforcement, claiming Google removed its app and later terminated its account in retaliation for filing trademark complaints while allowing similar apps to remain. The court found this sufficient to suggest Google exercised its discretion unfairly, undermining the developer’s reasonable expectations under the DDA, and allowed the claim to proceed.

2. Sanctions-related grounds

DDA Sections 8.3(a) and 16.5 apply to legally binding sanctions, meaning that enforcement depends on territorial scope. If a sanctions regime applies only to certain regions, distribution outside that area may be permissible.

For example
If a developer’s app is restricted under Country A’s sanctions but not under Country B’s, the app may still be legally distributed in Country B, even if Google blocks it in Country A.

DDA Sections 8.3(d) and 10.3(e), however, focus on Google's perceived risk, not just legal violations. This means Google may take action even where sanctions do not formally apply.

For example
If certain content is prohibited in Country A but allowed in Country B, Google might still remove the app worldwide to avoid reputational harm or user backlash.

Sanctions-related disputes with Google involve similar issues as those with Apple, including potential good faith and fair dealing violations. Developers should be cautious when dealing with sanctioned parties or their content, as enforcement can be unpredictable. Future U.S. case law may clarify the limits of Google’s authority under the DDA.

C. What To Do If Your App Is Removed or Your Developer Account Is Terminated?

If your app is removed or your account is terminated, act quickly. The Developer’s Miranda Rights apply here.

1. Go through the appeals process. Both Apple and Google offer internal appeal mechanisms. A well-crafted appeal can significantly improve your chances of reinstatement. Keep responses professional, avoid admissions of wrongdoing, and ensure you submit all required documentation promptly.
2. Preserve your data. As soon as you suspect your account is at risk (or immediately after a termination email), back up everything:
   ‍
   • Apple: Download app analytics, user emails, crash logs, and financial reports.
   • Google: Secure Google Play Console data.
3. Send a demand letter. If appeals fail, legal escalation may be necessary. A demand letter from an attorney citing relevant law can push Apple or Google’s legal teams to re-evaluate. Our firm has drafted demand letters that resulted in constructive dialogue where initial developer appeals were ignored.
4. File a lawsuit. If all else fails, the courts may be the only path. Filing suit can be expensive and slow, but it does bring an external review into play. In choosing claims, refer to the legal theories discussed above (breach of contract, implied covenant, interference, UCL, etc.). For faster action, consider filing a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to attempt to get reinstated pending the case.

III. Outlook: Evolving Legal Standards and Trends for App Developers

The landscape of app store disputes is in flux. Now, with high-profile conflicts and growing regulatory attention, we see evolving standards and trends that could improve fairness for developers.

Increased litigation against platforms. Developers are no longer passively accepting Apple and Google’s decisions. Lawsuits like Sarafan v. Apple[8] (arguing Apple wrongfully terminated a developer account), Musi v. Apple[9] (challenging a removal over alleged IP violations), and Sarafan v. Google (contesting an app removal following a competitor complaint) show that litigation against these platforms are gaining traction.

Clarification of discretion. Courts are beginning to scrutinize Apple’s and Google’s purported broad discretion when enforcing developer agreements. Sarafan v. Apple has put a spotlight on whether Apple’s authority under the DPLA is — as Apple claims — absolute or constrained by good faith obligations. Similarly, Tsargrad Media v. Google raises the issue of whether ambiguities in developer agreements should be interpreted against the platform, a principle that could help developers challenge vague or arbitrary enforcement decisions.[10] These cases will shape how courts interpret platform policies and termination clauses moving forward.

Settled cases. Some cases are resolving quietly. Digital Will v. Apple,[11] which challenged an app removal on good faith and fair dealing grounds, appears to have settled.

Regulatory and legislative pressure. The EU’s Digital Markets Act requires Apple to allow third-party app stores and sideloading, reducing its ability to dictate app distribution. In the U.S., the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple argues that Apple’s App Store policies harm competition, particularly by selectively enforcing rules to favor its own interests. Regulatory scrutiny is increasing pressure on both companies to modify their practices.

The future of developer disputes. Courts are still defining the limits of Apple and Google’s power over developers, but the legal environment is becoming more favorable for challenges. Developers facing unfair removals now have more legal tools available, and as litigation continues, we may see stronger protections in contract interpretation, dispute resolution, and platform accountability.

Sources & References

1. USPTO - Likelihood of Confusion, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion.
2. App Store Content Dispute, https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/dispute-forms/app-store/.
3. Complaint, Smart Space v. Apple Inc., No. 5:21-cv-08231-NC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021), ECF No. 1; Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of TRO and Preliminary Injunction, Smart Space v. Apple Inc., No. 5:21-cv-08231-NC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2021), ECF No. 7; https://www.justanswer.com/intellectual-property-law/ehybh-received-response-regarding-pet-pals-app.html; Complaint, The Blu Mkt., Inc. v. GG Oyun Bilisim Yazilim Ye Pazarlama A.S., No. 1:16-cv-03838-KBF (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016), ECF No. 1.
4. Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 24-CV-06920-EKL, 2025 WL 346468, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2025); See also Apple App Store Games Disputes; Appstore trademark dispute: I already changed my app title; Exhibit 5, Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. v. UCool, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-01267-LHK (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2015), ECF No. 30-6.
5. Exhibit J, Sarafan Mobile Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 3:24-cv-06038 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2024), ECF No. 1-1.
6. Sarafan Mobile Ltd. v. Google LLC et al, No. 5:24-CV-06038 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2024).
7. Complaint, Digital Will Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:23-cv-04266-PCP (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2023), ECF No. 1.
8. Sarafan Mobile Limited v. Apple Inc., No. 4:24CV02698 (N.D. Cal. filed May 6, 2024).
9. Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 24-CV-06920-EKL, 2025 WL 346468 (N.D. Cal. filed October 2, 2024).
10. Google LLC v. NAO Tsargrad Media, No. 5:24-CV-05423-EJD, 2024 WL 4844799 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024).
11. Digital Will Inc. v. Apple Inc., **No. 3:23-cv-04266 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2023).