Apple or Meta Closed Your Account. What Happens to the Money They Still Hold?

Guest article by Robert Lynch, Buzko Legal

‍

An account termination can leave a founder dealing with a second problem before the first one is resolved: the platform still holds revenue the business expected to receive. Meanwhile, salaries, advertising bills, and hosting costs still need to be paid.

I would look at the payment question at the same time as the account issue, rather than assuming that an appeal seeking reinstatement will also resolve the withheld funds. Once it becomes clear that the platform is holding money, determine how much is owed, when it should have been paid, and what contractual basis the platform has for keeping it.

Recent decisions involving Apple and Meta show why that matters. A platform may have broad contractual authority to remove an app or terminate an account without having the same broad authority to keep revenue the developer has already earned.

Read the payment terms closely

In March 2026, Musi v. Apple illustrated how difficult it can be to challenge an app’s removal under an agreement granting Apple broad discretion. The court dismissed Musi’s complaint with prejudice. Buzko Legal’s analysis of that decision examines the removal provisions and the limits of the claim based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

The payment dispute in Dana Soft v. Meta involved different language. Dana alleged that Meta withheld all of its July 2023 Audience Network advertising revenue after blocking several apps. On November 13, 2025, the court allowed its contract and implied-covenant claims to proceed. The payment terms did not give Meta the same broad discretion over withholding revenue that other provisions gave it over removing publishers or apps. The court’s order also treated the agreement’s payment obligations as divisible rather than all-or-nothing.

That ruling did not award Dana the money or establish Meta’s liability at trial. It allowed the claims to survive a motion to dismiss. I discussed its practical implications in Dana Soft v. Meta: what the ruling means for developers facing withheld payments.

Apple’s agreements, Meta’s Audience Network terms, and other monetization contracts differ. The useful starting question is whether the agreement authorizes the particular hold and, if so, how that provision applies to the money being withheld.

Establish the amount before demanding it

The amount shown by the platform may not be the final amount owed. Start by confirming how much has actually been withheld, what payments were expected, and what payments were received. If the platform has information needed to confirm the amount, ask for it.

Preserve the governing agreement and payment terms, along with the platform’s notice, payment records, and correspondence about the hold. The goal is to be able to explain clearly how the amount being demanded was calculated and why the platform should release it.

In our experience, the strongest demands clearly identify the amount being withheld and the contractual basis for requiring payment.  

Ask why the platform is withholding the full amount

If the platform identifies a problem with one app but is withholding proceeds across the whole account, ask how the two are connected. It is worth identifying which apps, transactions, and periods are implicated and how the platform calculated the amount it is withholding.

The Dana Soft case provides a useful example. Meta’s failure to explain why it withheld all of Dana’s revenue supported Dana’s allegation that the withholding was arbitrary. But the court did not treat the lack of an explanation as a separate breach of contract. Asking the platform for a breakdown can therefore be useful without assuming that the agreement itself requires one.

Depending on the record, the request may be release of the full amount, payment of a portion that is not implicated by the alleged conduct, or an explanation of what remains under review and why. The demand should match what the available documents support.

Payment recovery can be worthwhile even if access is unresolved

Our published platform-disputes experience includes a 2026 matter for a live-streaming and video-chat app developer whose Apple account was terminated and more than $350,000 in accrued proceeds withheld. Following a demand letter and communications with Apple’s outside counsel, Apple released all the withheld proceeds.

We have also represented a Facebook app developer whose account was placed on hold while Meta withheld more than $68,000 in payouts. After our demand letter, Meta unfroze the account and released the funds. These matters show that payment recovery can still be worth pursuing even when account access is unresolved.

A developer should first confirm how much is being withheld and what the agreement says about payment. It is also worth deciding whether the immediate goal is payment, restored access, or both. A demand letter should explain why the hold is being challenged and what the developer wants the platform to do.

Plan around money actually received

Even a well-supported claim for withheld funds can take time. Until the money is actually released, the business should plan around funds it has already received rather than amounts still being pursued.

If a settlement is offered, pay close attention to who has to do what and in what order. In one of our cases, Meta controlled withdrawal of the complaint while Google controlled reinstatement, so the settlement had to address both steps expressly. The same applies when payment and account access are both at issue. The agreement should make clear what is being resolved and when each party must act.

Developers dealing with payments being withheld can use Buzko Legal’s App Store disputes guide. For Apple, Meta, or other platform disputes involving withheld funds, Buzko Legal’s platform-disputes practice can assess the account history, payment records, and available options.

‍

Robert Lynch is a New York-licensed attorney in Buzko Legal’s litigation practice. His work includes disputes involving platform access and withheld developer payments. Skala is affiliated with Buzko Legal.