Business
Page: 199
Artificial Intelligence is one of the buzziest — and most rapidly changing — areas of the music business today. A year after the fake-Drake song signaled the technology’s potential applications (and dangers), industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill, like RIAA’s Tom Clees, are working to create guard rails to protect musicians — and maybe even get them paid.
Meanwhile, entrepreneurs like Soundful’s Diaa El All and BandLab’s Meng Ru Kuok (who oversees the platform as founder and CEO of its parent company, Caldecott Music Group) are showing naysayers that AI can enhance human creativity rather than just replacing it. Technology and policy experts alike have promoted the use of ethical training data and partnered with groups like Fairly Trained and the Human Artistry Coalition to set a positive example for other entrants into the AI realm.
What is your biggest career moment with AI?
Trending on Billboard
Diaa El All: I’m proud of starting our product Soundful Collabs. We found a way to do it with the artists’ participation in an ethical way and that we’re not infringing on any of their actual copyrighted music. With Collabs, we make custom AI models that understand someone’s production techniques and allow fans to create beats inspired by those techniques.
Meng Ru Kuok: Being the first creation platform to support the Human Artistry Coalition was a meaningful one. We put our necks out there as a tech company where people would expect us to actually be against regulation of AI. We don’t think of ourselves as a tech company. We’re a music company that represents and helps creators. Protecting them in the future is so important to us.
Tom Clees: I’ve been extremely proud to see that our ideas are coming through in legislation like the No AI Fraud Act in the House [and] the No Fakes Act in the Senate.
The term “AI” represents all kinds of products and companies. What do you consider the biggest misconception around the technology?
Clees: There are so many people who work on these issues on Capitol Hill who have only ever been told that it’s impossible to train these AI platforms and do it while respecting copyright and doing it fairly, or that it couldn’t ever work at scale. (To El All and Kuok.) A lot of them don’t know enough about what you guys are doing in AI. We need to get [you both] to Washington now.
Kuok: One of the misconceptions that I educate [others about] the most, which is counterintuitive to the AI conversation, is that AI is the only way to empower people. AI is going to have a fundamental impact, but we’re taking for granted that people have access to laptops, to studio equipment, to afford guitars — but most places in the world, that isn’t the case. There are billions of people who still don’t have access to making music.
El All: A lot of companies say, “It can’t be done that way.” But there is a way to make technological advancement while protecting the artists’ rights. Meng has done it, we’ve done it, there’s a bunch of other platforms who have, too. AI is a solution, but not for everything. It’s supposed to be the human plus the technology that equals the outcome. We’re here to augment human creativity and give you another tool for your toolbox.
What predictions do you have for the future of AI and music?
Clees: I see a world where so many more people are becoming creators. They are empowered by the technologies that you guys have created. I see the relationship between the artist and fan becoming so much more collaborative.
Kuok: I’m very optimistic that everything’s going to be OK, despite obviously the need for daily pessimism to [inspire the] push for the right regulation and policy around AI. I do believe that there’s going to be even better music made in the future because you’re empowering people who didn’t necessarily have some functionality or tools. In a world where there’s so much distribution and so much content, it enhances the need for differentiation more, so that people will actually stand up and rise to the top or get even better at what they do. It’s a more competitive environment, which is scary … but I think you’re going to see successful musicians from every corner of the world.
El All: I predict that AI tools will help bring fans closer to the artists and producers they look up to. It will give accessibility to more people to be creative. If we give them access to more tools like Soundful and BandLab and protect them also, we could create a completely new creative generation.
This story will appear in the June 1, 2024, issue of Billboard.
When Republic Records offered Tyler Arnold a full-time assistant role five months into his six-month internship with the label in 2014, taking it was “a no-brainer” — even if it meant dropping out of Northeastern University one year before graduating. “This is my dream,” Arnold recalls thinking. “I have to go for it.”
Arnold quickly became an A&R executive extraordinaire: His first signing to the label, in 2015, was a young Post Malone (“I signed him on my 23rd birthday,” Arnold recalls); his second was superproducer Metro Boomin in late 2016. By 2020, Arnold was Republic’s executive vp of A&R. “I really loved discovering music in high school and college, finding new artists and seeing them grow,” he says. “I also wanted to work really closely with the artists, and I felt like A&R, if you do it right, there’s such a personal connection that you can build.”
Today, the fast-rising executive is applying that same mentality as president of Mercury Records, the Republic division that relaunched in April 2022 with major names like Post and Noah Kahan and strategic partnerships with Big Loud (Morgan Wallen) and Imperial Music (Bo Burnham). And though Arnold says he wasn’t sure he was ready to head a label, “I wanted to grow as an executive.” (Along with Republic co-founders Monte and Avery Lipman, Arnold credits Big Loud partner/CEO Seth England for encouraging him to take his current role.)
Trending on Billboard
Given Republic’s existing infrastructure, Arnold, 31, says he didn’t have to worry as much about key departments like radio, commerce and international. As a result, he and GM Ben Adelson (a fellow Republic vet) had runway to try something new. “I asked a lot of my artists what they felt was missing, or I asked managers who had artists at other labels, and tried to create solutions to what the modern record label might look like,” Arnold says. “We really dove into creating a label that is fully led by A&R, creative and marketing.”
Tyler Arnold
Michael Tyrone Delaney
In just two years, Mercury has become an undeniable force. In its first year alone, the label scored a major success with Kahan’s Stick Season; the album’s extended deluxe version, Stick Season (Forever), featured artists including Kacey Musgraves, Hozier and Post. By the end of 2023, Kahan had secured a best new artist Grammy nomination. Meanwhile, Wallen’s 2023 album, One Thing at a Time, finished as the No. 1 year-end Billboard 200 album; in March, Big Loud announced a multiyear distribution deal with Mercury Records/Republic for all releases, including artists like HARDY and ERNEST.
As for Post, the star has already released a pair of projects on Mercury (2022’s twelve carat toothache and 2023’s Austin) and is teasing a third on the way — a country album. In April, he made his Stagecoach debut, performing a set of country covers, and the following night, he joined headliner Wallen to unveil their much-anticipated duet, “I Had Some Help”; the song debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 upon its May release, marking Post’s sixth topper on the chart (and Wallen’s second). (The single is the latest in an impressive 2024 collaborative run for Post, who has already appeared on Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter and Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department; the latter’s “Fortnight” scored him another Hot 100 No. 1.) “It has been a dream of mine for Post and Morgan to work together for years,” Arnold says, “and to see that come to fruition, it was truly a goose bumps moment.
“When we make a commitment to an artist, we’re hoping we work with them for the next 10 to 15 years and beyond,” he continues. “That’s the goal for us. It’s not knocking off hit songs. It’s building real careers.”
It’s also building lifelong bonds: Post welcomed his daughter two years ago, and Arnold recently became a first-time father. “We swap photos and videos and we definitely talk about it,” Arnold says. “My relationship with [Post] is one of the most special things I’ve gotten out of my career, just because of how far we’ve come and how close we still are — and continue to get. I think it’s rare to have that continuity.
“At the end of the day, I’m still an A&R,” he adds. “It reflects how we want to build Mercury. We’ve been lucky to work with some of the biggest and most influential artists over the last decade across all genres, and we want to extend that. [This role] allows me to still be a kid in a candy store, but also have more autonomy.”
This story will appear in the June 1, 2024, issue of Billboard.
Spotify is facing a class action lawsuit over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, filed by angry consumers who say the streaming company’s move left them “with nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
The case came just days after Spotify announced that the Car Thing – a device launched in 2021 for playing music in a car but discontinued just a year later – would be rendered fully non-usable in December. Spotify has offered no refunds or trade-in options.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for the jilted customers accused Spotify violating state and federal laws by essentially of duping their clients into buying a “useless product.”
Trending on Billboard
“Had plaintiffs and other members of the class known that Spotify manufactured the Car Thing with the ability to brick the product at any point after its introduction to the marketplace and in Spotify’s total discretion, they would not have bought a Car Thing, or would have paid substantially less for them,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit was filed by three Car Thing buyers — Hamza Mazumder, Anthony Bracarello and Luke Martin – but aims to represent thousands of other consumers who experienced “the forced obsolescence of their purchase.”
Spotify announced the Car Thing in April 2021, saying it would provide users with a “seamless and personalized in-car listening experience.” The product – a touch screen with a physical dial that still requires access to a smartphone — rolled out February 2022 at a price point of $89.99. But just months later, Spotify said it would cease production, telling investors that they “frankly haven’t seen the volume at the higher prices that would make the current product financially viable.”
Last week, Spotify alerted users last week that it would stop supporting the devices. Then this week, the company confirmed that the move, set to take effect Dec. 9, would render the devices fully inoperable. The company told users it was “not offering any trade-in options” and urged them to consider “safely disposing of your device following local electronic waste guidelines.”
“The goal of our Car Thing exploration in the U.S. was to learn more about how people listen in the car,” Spotify said in a statement. “In July 2022, we announced we’d stop further production and now it’s time to say goodbye to the devices entirely. Users will have until December 9, 2024 until all Car Thing devices will be deactivated.”
In the new lawsuit, Spotify’s customers say they couldn’t have expected that the company would shut down the devices just a few years after they were purchased. The decision to do so “unilaterally and without recourse” has left buyers nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
“Plaintiffs and class members would not have purchased a Car Thing if they knew that Spotify would stop supporting the product within just a few months or years of purchase,” attorneys for the users write.
In technical terms, the lawsuit includes allegations that Spotify violated state consumer protection and false advertising laws in New York, Florida and Pennsylvania, as well as the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and various other forms of civil wrongdoing.
A spokeswoman for Spotify did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Read the entire complaint here:
After nearly a decade at Universal Music Latino, Colombian superstar J Balvin is moving to Interscope Records. Sources tell Billboard that Balvin’s much anticipated new album will be released via Interscope Capitol Miami, the newly-minted division headed by Nir Seroussi in Miami.
Balvin’s album is expected to be released some time this year, with a date still to be announced.
Balvin is the second high profile artist to move from Universal Music Latin to sister label Interscope in the past year. Last year, Karol G, who had also long been signed to Universal Music Latino, signed to Interscope Capitol, which is also home to rising regional Mexican stars Xavi and Iván Cornejo and is run by Seroussi. Now, that division has been renamed Interscope Capitol Miami after Interscope and Capitol merged earlier this year.
Trending on Billboard
Interscope Capitol declined to comment, but sources say Balvin’s project will be worked by the Interscope Capitol Miami team together with Tom March’s Capitol team.
For Balvin, it’s a full circle moment. At the beginning of his career, he was originally signed to Capitol EMI, which was acquired by Universal, triggering his shift to Universal Music Latin, under which he soared to international stardom. In 2017, Balvin’s “Mi Gente” became the first-ever Spanish song to top Spotify’s global charts and rose to No. 3 on the Billboard Hot 100, aided by a remix with Beyonce. In 2018, he hit No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 with “I Like It,” his bilingual collaboration with Cardi B and Bad Bunny.
It’s also a big change moment for the Colombian star, who hasn’t released an album since 2021’s José. Now, after a brief management stint as the first Latin act on Scooter Braun’s roster, he signed last year to management with Roc Nation and, after performing an acclaimed set in Coachella this year, is currently touring Europe.
Earlier this month, another Universal Music Latin artist, acclaimed Chilean singer/songwriter Mon Laferte, signed with Sony Music US Latin.
Free music streaming shouldn’t be so free, Rob Stringer, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment, suggested Wednesday during a presentation to Sony Corp. analysts and investors.
The value of paid subscription “remains incredible,” said Stringer in prepared remarks during parent company Sony’s Business Segment Meeting 2024. But recent price increases — by Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube and, most recently, Pandora — have widened what Stringer called the “price gap” between free and paid streaming. Now, Sony wants streaming companies to get more from their free listeners.
“In mature markets, we hope that our partners close that gap by asking consumers using ad-supported services to additionally pay a modest fee,” said Stringer. “This would help develop this segment of the streaming business to be more than just a marketing funnel for paid subscription and still be a tremendous value for users. We have a shared interest in better monetization of free tiers. At Sony Music, we think everyone is willing to pay something for access to virtually the entire universe of music.”
Trending on Billboard
Free streaming provides an opportunity to attract paying subscribers but returns far less per listener than subscriptions. Even though Spotify has 62% more free listeners than subscribers, advertising accounted for just 10.7% of first-quarter revenue compared to 89.3% from subscriptions. Another round of price increases by Spotify this month in the U.K. and Australia portend additional price increases in the U.S. and other major markets. Further subscription price increases will widen the gap between premium and free streaming, and “even if advertising will become a better part of the story, it’s still a relatively small part of our overall revenue mix,” Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said during the April 23 earnings call.
Charging for ad-supported music would break from a long tradition of providing listeners with a free, on-demand streaming option. YouTube and Spotify are the two largest on-demand, ad-supported platforms that stream music. Amazon Music has a free tier with limited functionality. In the U.S., Pandora has about 39 million monthly active users for its ad-supported internet radio service that has less interactive capabilities than YouTube or Spotify. But paid, ad-supported streaming is common in the video world. Video on-demand services such as Hulu and Netflix offer low-price tiers with advertisements and charge higher prices to eliminate advertising altogether.
Sony Music also wants to extract more revenue from short-form video platforms such as TikTok that command huge audiences but provide relatively few royalties. “Premium-quality artistry drives the appeal of these services, with music being central to approximately 70% of videos created on them,” said Stringer. “These companies play a larger and larger role in music discovery and engagement amongst young listeners. More and more, these are primary consumption sources, and they need to be valued accordingly.”
Stringer, who does not comment during the parent company’s quarterly earnings calls, spoke and answered questions for 40 minutes about Sony Music artists, chart successes, growth opportunities and efforts in emerging markets. After highlighting Sony Music’s efforts in Latin America, India and China, he focused on the newest — and most vexing — technology on the music industry’s horizon. Artificial intelligence, he said, “represents a generational inflection point for music” and Sony Music will take “an active role” in creating a “sustainable business model” that respects the company’s rights.
But Stringer was clear that Sony Music is taking a hard line in the battle to shape AI in music. “We won’t tolerate the illicit training of AI models by reckless and unlicensed misuse of this art,” he warned. “We believe strongly that permission is the only way AI models can be trained with our content, and followed protocols of the EU AI act by sending over 700 letters to AI developers to opt our copyrights out of training.” Sony Music has also issued “over 20,000 takedowns of AI generated soundalikes over the past year,” he added, while working with legislators around the world “to shape policy and rights” on AI issues.
“With the right frameworks in place, innovation will thrive, technology, music will benefit and consumers will enjoy your experiences,” Stringer said. “We have prospered from disruptive market changes before so we are confident we can navigate this chapter successfully.”
A federal judge ruled Wednesday (May 29) that a sprawling copyright lawsuit can move forward with accusations that nearly 2,000 reggaeton songs — including hits by Bad Bunny, Karol G and dozens of others — all infringed a single 1989 song that allegedly spawned the so-called “dem bow” rhythm.
The huge infringement case, filed by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, claims that their 1989 song, “Fish Market,” was the source of dem bow — the boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick percussion featured in nearly every reggaeton song.
Demanding that the case be dismissed, Bad Bunny’s lawyers argued last year that Steely & Clevie’s massive case “seeks to monopolize practically the entire reggaetón musical genre for themselves” by claiming copyright control over “unprotectable” musical elements.
Trending on Billboard
But in the lawsuit’s first key decision, Judge André Birotte Jr. denied that motion on Wednesday, ruling that it was too early in the case to make those kinds of complex rulings and that Steely & Clevie had made a strong enough argument to move forward: “It is premature at this stage to find that the musical elements alleged are insufficiently original or indeed unprotectable.”
Notably, the judge also hinted that he might not be particularly receptive to such arguments when it’s time to rule on them. At one point, he warned that he “rejects” the idea that the massive success of a particular song could be used as a “double-edged sword” that would also void its copyrights.
“The court recognizes the practice of musical borrowing, and in doing so, cannot merely conclude that because the reggaeton genre (or artists) have purportedly borrowed significantly from attributes of plaintiffs’ work that those attributes are now in effect commonplace elements,” Judge Birotte wrote.
First filed in 2021 against just a handful of defendants, Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit has steadily grown to cover more and more artists and songs. In the latest iteration, the duo’s lawyers name more than 150 artists, also including Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber, plus units of all three major music companies.
Steely & Clevie’s lawyers claim that over 1,800 reggaetón songs featuring iterations of the dem bow rhythm were, at root, illegally copied from “Fish Market” — and that their clients deserve monetary compensation for them. Potentially damages are difficult to calculate, but could easily reach into the billions if the case is successful.
In Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte also rejected other arguments from the defendants beyond the core question of whether dem bow could be protected by copyright law.
For instance, in a June filing, attorneys for Daddy Yankee and the major labels argued that the case was so massive that it had become procedurally unfair. They called it a “shotgun pleading,” filled with so many vague accusations that it was “impossible for defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done.”
But in Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte said he was “unconvinced” by that argument — and that Steely & Clevie’s 228-page complaint had sufficiently laid out the case to satisfy procedural requirements.
Following Wednesday’s ruling, the case will proceed toward discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence, take depositions and seek expert testimony on complex questions relating to musicology. If the judge does not decide the case after discovery, the two sides will head to trial.
Neither side in the case immediately returned requests for comment.
A well-known hacking group claims to have breached Ticketmaster and is attempting to sell the personal data of 560 million Ticketmaster users, including their payment details, for $500,000, according to the website Hackread.
Alleged hacking group ShinyHunters has claimed credit for the break-in, resulting in the theft of 1.3 terabytes of stolen data that includes usernames, contact information, order info and partial payment details, like the last four digits of a customer’s credit card, expiration dates and even details designed to prevent fraud (i.e. mother’s maiden name).
Officials with Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, have not responded to requests for comment from Billboard or confirmed that the breach took place, but Australian officials with the country’s Department of Home Affairs told the Australian Broadcasting Company that it was aware of a cyber incident that was part of a data leak expected to impact millions of Ticketmaster customers globally.
Trending on Billboard
A spokesperson from the Department of Home Affairs told the ABC that the department is “working with Ticketmaster to understand the incident”.
“The data breach, if confirmed, could have severe implications for the affected users, leading to potential identity theft, financial fraud, and further cyber attacks,” the Hackread site explains. “The hacker group’s bold move to put this data on sale goes on to show the growing menace of cybercrime and the increasing sophistication of these cyber adversaries.”
The hack comes as Ticketmaster and Live Nation face attempts by the federal government to break the company up on antitrust grounds. Last week, the Department of Justice’s antitrust division sued Ticketmaster in New York’s Southern District, alleging that the company acted monopolistically. Company officials have vowed to fight the lawsuit.
ShinyHunters emerged on law enforcement’s radar in 2020 and has been linked to breaches affecting more than 60 companies. The group is known to use dark web forums to threaten to leak sensitive consumer information unless the affected companies pay an online ransom. Most breaches are carried out using sophisticated phishing pages that mimic their target’s login portals, tricking employees into entering account credentials and other sensitive data. Members of ShinyHunters then use the stolen credentials to log in to company systems and steal data and customer information.
In January, a U.S. District Court in Seattle sentenced alleged ShinyHunters member Sebastien Raoult to three years in prison and restitution of $5 million after Raoult pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The 22-year-old French national was arrested in Morocco in 2022 and extradited to the United States in January 2023.
ShinyHunters is reportedly selling the Ticketmaster data on Breach Forums, an illegal marketplace that just two weeks ago had been seized by the FBI.
On May 13, FBI officials apprehended the site’s administrator and seized access to login credentials for the entire infrastructure of Breach Forums, including the backend, across its dark web and clear web sites.
“From June 2023 until May 2024, BreachForums was operating as a clearnet marketplace for cybercriminals to buy, sell, and trade contraband, including stolen access devices, means of identification, hacking tools, breached databases, and other illegal services,” FBI official said in a statement at the time.
But several days later, ShinyHunters allegedly contacted the domain registrar of Breach Forums and successfully regained access, according to Hack News, with the FBI seizure notice on the site replaced by a “Site Temporarily Unavailable” message. Earlier today, Breach Forums was updated again, this time with the alleged stolen Ticketmaster data posted on the site for sale.
Sony is the undisclosed suitor that Queen was in an exclusive period with in negotiating the sale of its catalog and other music assets, as reported by Bloomberg today. There have been multiple reports that the catalog was up for sale since Music Business Worldwide first broke the news last May.
So far, Queen is believed to have had initial conversations about the potential deal with Disney, which owns the band’s masters for North America, and Universal Music Group. According to sources, the deal is being shopped by the band’s lawyers.
Trending on Billboard
In fact, each band member was said to have their own lawyers for the deal; early this year, some sources suggested that John Deacon’s share of the band’s assets might not be included in any potential agreement. Putting a deal like this together is a very complex process and with all the personalities involved, it’s still a question of whether one will ultimately be struck. In fact, that very issue — band members with different agendas — is said to have derailed a deal for the Pink Floyd assets a while back. That deal was expected to go for $500 million before it collapsed sometime in 2022.
Sources previously told Billboard that Queen was seeking $1.2 billion for its music assets, a price tag that limited the number of prospective suitors. In order to swallow the hefty price tag, Sony is reportedly partnering with an undisclosed financial player. Previously, Sony had help in acquiring the Bruce Springsteen master recording catalog from Eldridge Industries, which at one time owned Billboard.
Queen’s lawyers and Sony Music representatives were not immediately available for comment.
The Queen catalog includes iconic hit songs such as “Bohemian Rhapsody,” “Killer Queen,” “Another One Bites the Dust,” “Radio Ga Ga,” “Somebody to Love,” “Crazy Little Thing Called Love,” “You’re My Best Friend, “We Will Rock You” and “We Are the Champions.” Since 1991, the catalog has generated slightly more than 38 million album consumption units in the United States and has nearly 46 billion in global on-demand streams, according to Luminate. Go here for a full breakdown of the band’s catalog and financial performance.
If Sony completes the deal, it could very well be the biggest music asset deal ever made, even if it does not command the highest valuation for an artist’s music assets. Late last year, Sony bought half of the Michael Jackson estate for about $600 million, according to sources, though Sony never confirmed the acquisition.
StubHub must pay more than $16 million in legal damages after a jury decided that the ticketing giant intentionally torpedoed a smaller company’s lucrative concierge partnership with American Express.
Following a month-long trial, a Los Angeles jury on Friday (May 24) sided with Spotlight Ticket Management — a tech startup that had sued over allegations that StubHub failed to pay Spotlight millions in commissions and then used false statements to “poison” the company’s relationship with Amex.
Leading up to the trial, StubHub had argued it paid Spotlight everything that was owed and that the smaller firm had killed its Amex deal itself by being an “unreasonable partner” to the financial giant: “The true cause of Spotlight’s demise was Spotlight itself.”
Trending on Billboard
But in Friday’s verdict, the jurors found for Spotlight on both issues. They ordered StubHub to pay $3 million over the commissions; $5.3 million over money lost from the terminated Amex partnership; and another $8.1 million that they said Spotlight would have earned from Amex in the future.
StubHub did not immediately return a request for comment. Amex was not named as a defendant in the case or accused of any wrongdoing. In a statement, Spotlight called the verdict “a victory for Spotlight, for affiliate partners more broadly, and for ticket purchasers across the country.”
Launched in 2007, Spotlight offers ticketing management software to help companies provide event access to their employees or customers. One of its major clients was Amex, which used Spotlight as part of its concierge system to buy concert and sports tickets for premium cardholders.
In its lawsuit, Spotlight claimed that it had successfully partnered with StubHub for years, sending as much as $85 million in ticket sales to the company’s platform and receiving a 7% commission on those sales.
But starting in 2016, Spotlight claimed that StubHub began underpaying those commissions. And when the smaller company raised the dispute, it claimed that StubHub retaliated by tanking its relationship with Amex with false and disparaging claims.
“StubHub gave Amex an ‘ultimatum’ that it could not work with Spotlight for these reasons and Amex would lose access to StubHub’s entire ticket inventory, crushing the availability of secondary market tickets to the Amex Concierge program overnight, unless Amex got rid of Spotlight,” the company’s attorneys wrote in a pre-trial briefing.
StubHub sharply disagreed. In its own filings, the company argued that it had paid Spotlight all the commissions that it was actually owed under its affiliate program. And it said that the smaller company had “destroyed its own relationship with Amex” through “erratic behavior.”
“Spotlight has taken a modest dispute about payment of affiliate commissions and morphed it into a conspiratorial web to support its claim for hundreds of millions of dollars,” StubHub’s attorneys wrote. “Amex witnesses have testified that they decided not to renew based on Spotlight’s unreasonable demands and that StubHub had nothing to do with Amex’s decision.”
But following a three-week trial, jurors believed Spotlight’s version of events, finding StubHub liable for breach of contract over the unpaid commissions as well as intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic relations over the Amex partnership.
StubHub can appeal the verdict, first by asking the judge to order a new trial and then by taking the case to a California appeals court.
Cher has won her lawsuit against Sonny Bono’s widow over royalties to “I Got You Babe” and other hits after a federal judge ruled that Mary Bono must continue paying the superstar her cut under the couple’s decades-old divorce settlement.
More than 20 years after Sonny’s death, Mary argued that she no longer needed to pay royalties to Cher thanks to copyright law’s so-called termination right — a provision of federal law that allows songwriters and their heirs to win back control of their intellectual property rights decades after they gave them away.
But in a decision issued Wednesday (May 29), Judge John A. Kronstadt ruled that the federal termination rules do not trump Sonny and Cher’s 1978 divorce settlement, which gave the singer a permanent 50% cut of the publishing revenue from songs written before the couple split up.
Trending on Billboard
The ruling means that Cher will continue to receive publishing royalties for her catalog of songs created with Sonny, including “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.” According to Wednesday’s ruling, more than $400,000 in royalties owed to Cher have piled up since the dispute began.
Neither side’s attorneys immediately returned requests for comment.
Sonny and Cher started performing together in 1964 and married in 1967, rising to fame with major hits like “I Got You Babe,” “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.” But the pair split up in 1974, finalizing their divorce with a settlement in 1978. Under that deal, Sonny retained ownership of their music rights, but Cher was granted a half-share of all publishing royalties in perpetuity.
That agreement stayed in effect for years, including after Bono died in a 1998 skiing accident. But in 2016, Mary and other heirs invoked the termination right, seeking to take back control of Sonny’s copyrights from his publishers. And in 2021, they informed Cher that they would soon stop paying royalties under the earlier agreement.
Cher quickly sued, seeking a ruling that she was still owed her 50% cut regardless of who owns the copyrights since a federal copyright provision had no bearing on a state-law asset settlement. Mary fired back a few months later, claiming that termination rights could not be waived by contract and that Cher’s arguments would “subvert” the purpose of the law.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Kronstadt sided with Cher’s arguments. He ruled that the divorce settlement with Sonny gave Cher a “contractual right to receive financial compensation,” rather than the kind of control over his copyrights that could be voided using the termination right: “A right to receive royalties is distinct from a grant of copyright,” the judge wrote.