Rave sues Apple over SharePlay ban

A watch-party app is trying to turn an App Store takedown into a global antitrust case. Rave says Apple removed its iPhone app in August 2025, then kept promoting Apple’s own built-in co-watching feature, SharePlay. That matters because Rave is not just saying “we were treated unfairly.” Rave is saying Apple used control over iPhone distribution to kneecap a cross-platform rival — and it filed suits this week in the United States, Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands, and Russia. ### What is Rave, exactly? Rave is a social viewing app — basically a place where people watch video together in sync while chatting. Its site pitches support for services like Netflix, YouTube, Disney+, Prime Video, and HBO Max, and the company says the app has topped 225 million downloads. The important part is that Rave works across platforms, so an iPhone user and an Android user can join the same session. ### What changed this week? On May 7 and May 8, news broke that Rave had filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple in five countries. (msn.com) The core allegation is simple: Apple launched SharePlay, then later removed Rave from the App Store, cutting off Rave’s access to iPhone users while Apple’s own competing feature stayed built in. Reuters described the filing as an antitrust suit over Apple kicking Rave off the App Store after introducing SharePlay. (rave.io) ### Why does SharePlay matter here? SharePlay is Apple’s native group-activity system for watching video, listening to music, gaming, and more while people are in FaceTime or Messages. In other words, Apple is not just the store owner here. Apple also sells the house brand. That is what gives the complaint its edge — Rave is arguing the platform operator and the competitor are the same company. (msn.com) ### Why is cross-platform the real fight? Because built-in Apple features mostly help people who are already inside Apple’s world. Rave’s pitch is different — one room, mixed devices, shared playback. If that kind of app disappears from iPhones, the product loss is not just “one more app got banned.” The loss is a bridge between ecosystems. Rave’s filing leans hard on that point, saying Apple’s move reduced consumer choice and increased switching costs. (developer.apple.com) ### What does Apple say the App Store is for? Apple’s standing position is that the App Store is curated for privacy, security, and content standards, and that every app has to comply with its review guidelines. Apple’s developer materials make that philosophy very explicit. So the legal question is not whether Apple can review apps at all — of course it can. The question is whether those rules were enforced neutrally here, or used in a way that favored Apple’s own competing product. (businesswire.com) ### What is Rave saying about the ban? Rave says Apple cited fraud and content-moderation concerns, but the company calls those reasons a smokescreen. It also says it has since built stronger moderation and age-verification tools through its a-eye.com system while trying to get back onto Apple devices. That does not prove Rave’s case, but it shows where the argument is headed — safety rationale on one side, competitive motive on the other. (developer.apple.com) ### Why file in five countries? Because app-store power is global, but antitrust law is local. Filing in multiple jurisdictions raises pressure and gives Rave more than one shot at finding a court or regulator willing to treat app review as exclusionary conduct. It also fits the broader mood around Big Tech gatekeepers, where the fight is increasingly about defaults, distribution, and self-preferencing — not just price. (hoodline.com) ### Bottom line This case is really about who gets to decide what “safe” means when the referee also has a product on the field. If Rave can make a court see the App Store ban as competitive strategy rather than routine moderation, Apple has a real antitrust headache. If not, this becomes another reminder that on iPhone, distribution power is product power. (secure.businesswire.com)