State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 3
A Houston judge has denied Travis Scott’s motion to be dismissed from sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at the Astroworld music festival ahead of a looming jury trial next month.
Scott’s attorneys had argued that the star himself could not be held legally liable for the deadly crowd crush during his the November 2021 performance, which killed 10 and injured hundreds. They argued that safety and security at live events is “not the job of performing artists.”
But in a ruling made public on Wednesday, Judge Kristen Hawkins denied that motion, leaving Scott on the hook to face the first jury trial in the case, set to kick off next month. She offered no written rationale for her ruling, and attorneys for Scott did not return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
More than 2,500 people have sued over Astroworld – a popular festival headlined and marketed by the Houston-native Scott that turned deadly in 2021. Collectively seeking billions in potential damages, the victims claim that Scott (real name Jacques Bermon Webster II), Live Nation and other organizers were legally negligent in how they planned the event.
The lawsuits, combined into one single large action in Texas state court in Houston, have spent much of the last two years in discovery, as the two sides exchange information and take depositions of key figures. Scott was deposed in October, facing questioning from plaintiffs attorneys for roughly eight hours, according to the Associated Press.
The first trial in the massive litigation – a wrongful death case filed by family of Madison Dubiski, a 23-year-old who died at Astroworld – is set to start on May 6.
With that trial date looming, many of the defendants have pushed to be dismissed from the case. Drake (Aubrey Graham), who was named in many of the lawsuits because he appeared on stage as a guest performer during Scott’s deadly show, was dismissed earlier this month.
Scott’s attorneys argued last month that he too should not be held liable for the tragic incident. Even though the event was promoted under Scott’s name and branding, his lawyers said that he was merely an onstage performer who was not responsible for ensuring audience safety.
“Like any other adrenaline-inducing diversion, music festivals must balance exhilaration with safety and security—but that balance is not the job of performing artists, even those involved in promoting and marketing performances,” wrote Scott’s attorney Daniel Petrocelli. “Which only makes sense: Performing artists, even those who engage in certain promotional activities, have no inherent expertise or specialized knowledge in concert safety measures, venue security protocols, or site-design.”
At a hearing over that motion last week, attorneys for Dubiski’s family pushed back on Scott’s arguments, saying he had a “conscious disregard for safety.”
As reported by the Associated Press, the victim’s attorneys argued that Scott had encouraged fans to break into the concert without a ticket, citing a tweet on the day of the concert in which he said “we still sneaking the wild ones in.” They also said he had create unsafe crowd flow conditions by insisting that Scott be the only musical act to use the main stage on the festival’s first day, and then ignored orders from festival organizers to stop the concert when conditions turned dangerous.
Tupac Shakur’s estate is threatening to sue Drake over a recent diss track against Kendrick Lamar that featured an AI-generated version of the late rapper’s voice, calling it a “a flagrant violation” of the law and a “blatant abuse” of his legacy.
In a Wednesday cease-and-desist letter obtained exclusively by Billboard, litigator Howard King told Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham) that he must confirm that he will pull down his “Taylor Made Freestyle” in less than 24 hours or the estate would “pursue all of its legal remedies” against him.
Trending on Billboard
“The Estate is deeply dismayed and disappointed by your unauthorized use of Tupac’s voice and personality,” King wrote in the letter. “Not only is the record a flagrant violation of Tupac’s publicity and the estate’s legal rights, it is also a blatant abuse of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its approval for this use.”
Drake released “Taylor Made” on Friday, marking the latest chapter in a back-and-forth war of words between the Canadian rapper and Lamar. Beyond taking shots at both Kendrick and Taylor Swift, the track made headlines because of its prominent use of artificial intelligence technology to create fake verses from Tupac and Snoop Dogg – two West Coast legends idolized by the LA-based Lamar.
“Kendrick, we need ya, the West Coast savior/ Engraving your name in some hip-hop history,” the AI-generated Tupac raps in Drake’s song. “If you deal with this viciously/ You seem a little nervous about all the publicity.”
In Tuesday’s letter, Tupac’s estate warned Drake that the use of his voice clearly violated Tupac’s so-called publicity rights – the legal power to control how your image or likeness is used by others. And they took particular exception the use of his voice to take shots at Lamar.
“The unauthorized, equally dismaying use of Tupac’s voice against Kendrick Lamar, a good friend to the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac and his legacy publicly and privately, compounds the insult,” King wrote.
A rep for Drake declined to comment on the demands of the Shakur estate.
It’s unclear if Snoop Dogg, whose voice was also featured on “Taylor Made,” is planning to raise similar legal objections to Drake’s track. On Saturday, he posted a video to social media in which he seemed to be learning of the song for the first time: “They did what? When? How? Are you sure?” A rep for Snoop Dogg did not return a request for comment.
The unauthorized use of voice cloning technology has become one of the music industry’s thorniest legal subjects, as AI-powered tools have made easier than ever to convincingly mimic real artists.
The issue exploded onto the scene last year, when an unknown artist named Ghostwriter released a track called “Heart On My Sleeve” that featured – ironically – fake verses from Drake’s voice. Since then, as voice-cloning has proliferated on the internet, industry groups, legal experts and lawmakers have wrangled over how best to crack down on it.
It’s not as simple as it might seem. Federal copyrights are difficult to directly apply, since cloned vocals usually feature new words and music that are distinct from existing copyrighted songs. The publicity rights cited by the estate are a better fit because they protect someone’s likeness itself, but they have historically been used to sue over advertisements, rather than over creative works like songs.
Faced with that legal uncertainty, the recording industry and top artists have pushed for new legislation to address the problem. Last month, Tennessee passed a statute called the ELVIS Act that aims to crack down on voice cloning by expanding the state’s publicity right laws beyond just advertisements. Lawmakers in Washington DC are also considering similar bills that would create new, broader publicity rights at a federal level.
In Wednesday’s letter, however, the estate said that California’s existing publicity right laws clearly outlaw something as blatant as Drake’s use of Tupac’s voice in “Taylor Made.” King argued that the song had caused “substantial economic and reputational harm” by creating the “false impression that the estate and Tupac promote or endorse the lyrics for the sound-alike.”
The estate also argued that the song was likely created using an AI model that violated the estate’s copyrights by “training” on existing recordings of Tupac’s music. The legality of using copyrighted “inputs” is another difficult legal issue that’s currently being tested in several closely-watched lawsuits against AI developers, including one filed by major music publishers.
“It is hard to believe that [Tupac’s record label]’s intellectual property was not scraped to create the fake Tupac AI on the Record,” King wrote, before demanding that Drake also provide “a detailed explanation for how the sound-alike was created and the persons or company that created it, including all recordings and other data ‘scraped’ or used.”
Wednesday’s letter also pointedly highlighted that Drake himself has made previous objections to the use of his own likeness by others. In addition to last year’s incident surrounding “Heart on My Sleeve” — which was quickly pulled down from the internet — King pointed to a lesser-known federal lawsuit in which Drake’s attorneys accused a website of using his image without authorization.
“The [“Taylor Made Freestyle”] has generated well more than one million streams at this point and has been widely reported in the general national press and popular entertainment websites and publications,” the estate wrote. “Without question, it is exponentially more serious and damaging than a picture of you with some other people on a low volume website.”
In its closing paragraphs, the letter demanded written confirmation by noon Pacific on Thursday that Drake’s representatives were “expeditiously taking all steps necessary to have it removed.”
“If you comply, the estate will consider whether an informal negotiation to resolve this matter makes sense,” King wrote. “If you do not comply, our client has authorized this firm to pursue all of its legal remedies including, but not limited to, an action for violation of … the estate’s copyright, publicity and personality rights and the resulting damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.”
Megan Thee Stallion and Roc Nation are facing a lawsuit from a cameraman who claims he was forced to watch her have sex with a woman inside a moving vehicle while she was on tour in Spain.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (April 23) in Los Angeles court, Emilio Garcia accused the superstar of subjecting him to a hostile work environment due to the alleged incident, which he says amounted to harassment that left him “embarrassed, mortified and offended.”
“After a night out, plaintiff Stallion and three other women were riding in a SUV together,” Garcia’s lawyers write in the lawsuit, obtained by Billboard. “Suddenly, Stallion and one of the other women start having sex right beside plaintiff. Plaintiff could not get out of the car as it was both moving and he was in the middle of nowhere in a foreign country.”
Trending on Billboard
Garcia claims that the day after the incident — which allegedly occurred in June 2022 near Ibiza, Spain — Megan told him, “Don’t ever discuss what you saw.” He says she then “berated him” and made “fat-shaming comments” towards him.
In the months following the alleged incident, Garcia claims that Roc Nation switched him from a monthly rate to a per-assignment arrangement. He says he also “noticed a change in how he was treated and saw a decrease in the number of bookings he received from Stallion.” In June 2023, he claims he was told that he was told that “his services would no longer be required.”
Beyond the allegations of a hostile workplace, Garcia also claims that Megan and Roc Nation violated California wage-and-hour laws by failing to fully pay him for the “myriad” tasks he performed for the superstar as her personal cameraman: “More than once, Stallion interrupted plaintiff during dinner and demanded that he immediately shift his focus to assist with her TikTok creative ideas.”
Despite his status as an independent contractor, Garcia claims that Megan effectively treated him like an employee. He says she repeatedly told him explicitly that he was “not allowed to service any other client other than herself.”
Notably, Garcia is represented by the same attorneys (Neama Rahmani and Ronald Zambrano) who filed a high-profile hostile workplace case against Lizzo on behalf of three of her backup dancers. Like the new case, that earlier lawsuit also features allegations that employees were forced to watch sex acts in a European country during an overseas tour.
A rep for Megan and Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Pharrell faces another trademark dispute, this time filed by Pink over the term “P.Inc”; Madonna is sued again by fans angry about delayed starts to her concerts; YoungBoy Never Broke Again is arrested again on new drug and gun charges; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Pink v. P.Inc
Another week, another trademark dispute for Pharrell Williams.Less than a month after his longtime friend and musical collaborator Chad Hugo accused him of wrongly trying to secure trademarks to their shared “Neptunes” name, the superstar was hit with a similar action from the singer Pink.The disputed trademark? The term “P.Inc,” which Pharrell’s lawyers applied to register last year as a federal trademark covering a wide range of advertising and business services. Pink’s lawyers say the term is so similar to her own stage name that it would confuse consumers who see it.Strangely enough, Pink is actually not the first trademark owner to complain about Pharrell’s trademark application. Last month, the application drew another opposition filing from a retail giant that’s used the term PINK for decades. For more, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
MADONNA SUED AGAIN – Madonna and Live Nation were hit with another federal class action lawsuit over late starts to her concerts, this time filed by spurned Washington D.C. ticket buyers who are accusing her of showing “total disrespect for her fans” by forcing them to wait “hours for her performance in a hot, uncomfortable arena.” The case comes three months after Madonna was hit with a similar case in New York – a case that she is currently seeking to have tossed out of court.YOUNGBOY ARRESTED – YoungBoy Never Broke Again (aka NBA YoungBoy) was arrested on new drug and weapons charges amid a years-long house arrest in Utah as he awaits trial on separate federal gun charges. Local police say he ran a “large scale prescription fraud ring” aimed at purchasing codeine from area drug stores, using associates to illicitly buy the pharmaceuticals under a real doctor’s name. Federal prosecutors, who had already accused the rapper of breaking the terms of his house arrest, quickly moved to revoke his pre-trial release altogether.MOTOWN LEGEND FIRES BACK – Motown Records founder Berry Gordy Jr. fired back after being named as a defendant in an ugly legal battle pitting his son against a former business advisor and romantic partner, calling it a “craven, desperate, and disgusting attempt” to “shake down” his family.
Trending on Billboard
Motown Records founder Berry Gordy Jr. is caught up in an ugly legal battle pitting his son against a former business advisor and romantic partner – a lawsuit he says is a “craven, desperate, and disgusting attempt” to “shake down” his family.
In a filing Monday in Los Angeles court, attorneys for Gordy demanded that he be dismissed from the case, arguing that the legendary record executive had been unfairly dragged into the litigation to distract from “wanton acts of embezzlement” committed by his son’s accuser.
“Extortion—though illegal and highly unethical—is a powerful weapon,” wrote Gordy’s lawyers Christopher Frost and John D. Maatta. “Nowhere is that more true than here.”
Trending on Billboard
Gordy founded Motown in 1959, paving the way for the influential soul music sound that came to bear the same name. He eventually signed the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, the Temptations and Stevie Wonder and many others to the label, before selling it off to MCA in 1988.
His strongly-worded response on Monday came amid a back-and-forth legal dispute between his son, Kennedy Gordy (better known by his stage name Rockwell), and Anita Hawker Thompson, who previously served as the CEO of Kennedy’s company, Rockwell Entertainment Enterprises.
Kennedy’s company sued Thompson last year, claiming that he suffers from “psychological impairments” and that Thompson had abused her power over him to steal $1.7 million in royalty payments that had been paid to the company.
Last week, Thompson responded by filing her own scathing countersuit, accusing Kennedy of subjecting her to “physical, sexual, and psychological abuse” during a years-long romantic relationship. In it, she also named the elder Gordy as a defendant, claiming he knew about his son’s abusive conduct and “tried to cover it up.”
But in Monday’s filing, Gordy’s attorneys blasted Thompson’s allegations as “a falsified, unverified narrative” that was aimed at distracting from the fact that she had “illegally abused her position of trust over Kennedy.”
“The response of Ms. Thompson [is] a craven, desperate, and disgusting attempt to further shake-down the Gordy family and to attempt to manufacture a fabricated claim to conveniently offset the claim for theft and conversion that she is facing — to which she has no legitimate legal or factual defense,” Berry’s attorneys write.
In her lawsuit last week, Thompson’s attorneys included pages of disturbing allegations of “intimate partner violence,” including that Kennedy “beat, kicked, punched, and raped” her and then used “threats of violence and deportation to secure her silence.” But in his response Monday, the attorneys for the elder Gordy say that those “fabricated events” could only have plausibly taken place in the 1980s – well past the statute of limitations for bringing them to court.
“Ms. Thompson and her counsel, well-aware that the fabrications complained of occurred over thirty years ago, do not mention any dates when the fabricated wrongs are alleged to have taken place,” Gordy’s lawyers write.
Attorneys for both Thompson and Kennedy did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
Pink has filed a legal action against Pharrell Williams over his efforts to secure a trademark on the term “P.Inc” – a case that comes just weeks after Pharrell was hit with a similar branding dispute case by a longtime friend.
In an action filed Thursday at a federal tribunal, lawyers for Pink (real name Alecia Moore) claim that the trademark Pharrell is trying to register is so similar to her stage name that it’s “likely to cause confusion, mistake and/or deception” among consumers who see it.
The case was filed by Pink’s company, Lefty Paw Print, which owns numerous trademark registrations to her name, against Pharrell’s company, PW IP Holdings. Reps for Pharrell did not immediately return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
The new legal battle comes less than a month after Pharrell was hit with the same type of trademark action by Chad Hugo, his longtime producing partner and childhood friend. Hugo claims that Pharrell is “fraudulently” seeking sole control over the trademarks to “The Neptunes” – the name of their prolific 2000s songwriting partnership – even though they have always split the group’s assets.
At the time, Pharrell’s reps said he had been “surprised” by Hugo’s accusations, and that his “Neptunes” trademark applications had been solely designed to “make sure a third party doesn’t get a hold of the trademark.” Hugo’s lawyers rejected that explanation, calling the trademark applications “a land grab in a long simmering dispute.”
At issue in the new case is an application to register “P.Inc” as a federal trademark, which his lawyers say he intends to use for a wide range of services, including “promotional marketing services in the field of music.” A trademark registration is what allows brands to place the (R) symbol next to their name, and makes it easier to sue people who use it without permission.
The application was filed last year by PW IP Holdings LLC, Pharrell’s company that also owns such trademark registrations for his band N.E.R.D., his Miami-based Goodtime Hotel, and numerous other brand names connected to the superstar.
Pink’s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on the dispute.
Even before Pink filed her case on Thursday, Pharrell’s application for the “P. Inc” trademark had already drawn legal opposition from another entity that has prominently used the name “Pink” for its goods.
That would be Victoria’s Secret, which since 2002 has sold a line of PINK lingerie and apparel. The retail giant filed its own case against Pharrell’s company last month, making similar arguments that Pharrell’s trademark would be confusingly similar to its own name.
“Opposer’s use of its ‘Victoria’s Secret PINK’ and ‘PINK’ marks predates applicant’s filing date,” the company’s lawyers wrote in a March 21 filing. “Applicant’s mark is highly similar to, and is the phonetic equivalent of, opposer’s ‘PINK’ marks.”
Utah police are accusing YoungBoy Never Broke Again (aka NBA YoungBoy) of running a “large scale prescription fraud ring” aimed at purchasing codeine from local drug stores, according to new legal filings that shed light on his arrest earlier this week.
In an affidavit disclosed in court documents Thursday (April 18) and obtained by Billboard, the Cache County Sheriff’s Office said it had executed a search warrant Monday on YoungBoy’s home – where he’s been living under house arrest for more than two years while awaiting trial on federal gun charges.
According to the filings, the raid followed a monthslong investigation into allegedly fraudulent prescription drug purchases at multiple Utah drug stores by “associates” of YoungBoy (real name Kentrell DeSean Gaulden). The search allegedly turned up prescription drugs bearing the names used in some of the phony purchases, as well as a gun.
Trending on Billboard
“Kentrell DeSean Gaulden, also known as NBA YoungBoy, has been a target of investigation by the Cache County Sheriff’s Office after being identified as a suspect in a large scale prescription fraud ring,” reads the affidavit, signed by a local police officer. “The prescription fraud ring is known to have attempted or has acquired various prescription medications … from multiple pharmacies in Cache County as well as throughout the state of Utah.”
Thursday’s affidavit from local police was disclosed by federal prosecutors, who filed it along with a request for a federal judge to revoke YoungBoy’s pre-trial house arrest and place him in detention until his trial.
YoungBoy’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment. The Cache County Sheriff’s Office has not yet responded to requests for comment on YoungBoy’s arrest.
According to Thursday’s filings, Utah authorities claim that multiple people used a real doctor’s name and identification number to call in prescriptions at local pharmacies for promethazine with codeine, a cough suppressant-opioid mix that’s best known as an ingredient in “purple drank” or “lean.” Several such people were reportedly arrested in a car registered to YoungBoy; several of them were also allegedly recorded as visitors to the mansion where he is serving house arrest.
“A suspect calls in a prescription, claiming the identity of a real doctor and using a fraudulent patient name and birthday, all for Promethazine with Codeine,” the Utah police affidavit reads “Sometime after the prescriptions are called in, they are filled and picked up by various individuals that have been found to be involved in the organized criminal dealings.”
The filing sheds light on YoungBoy’s sudden arrest Tuesday, when the rapper was hit with six new charges, including procuring or attempting to procure prescription drugs; possession of other controlled substances; possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person; a “pattern of unlawful activity”; identify fraud; and forgery.
The new accusations came as YoungBoy was awaiting trial on federal firearms charges filed against him in March 2021, stemming from a September 2020 incident in Baton Rouge, La., in which he was allegedly found with two guns. He was charged with violating a long-standing federal law that bans convicted felons from ever again possessing guns — a rule that applied to him because he had been convicted in 2017 of aggravated assault with a firearm.
The rapper had finally been set for a trial on those charges this July. But in a March ruling, a federal judge paused the case to await a Supreme Court ruling on a major gun-control case that could play a key role in YoungBoy’s efforts to avoid a conviction.
While awaiting trial, YoungBoy has been confined to his Salt Lake City mansion — a house arrest that has now lasted more than two full years. In October, his attorneys pleaded that the “long period of social isolation” was harming his mental health and asked that the judge loosen restrictions, including allowing him to travel to a recording studio to create new music. But that request was largely denied in November.
Now, based on the new Utah arrest, federal prosecutors are seeking to revoke YoungBoy’s house arrest arrangement entirely: “The United States respectfully requests that this court issue an order to arrest the defendant, set a hearing to determine whether the defendant’s pre-trial release order shall be revoked, and detain the defendant pending trial.”
YoungBoy remains in Cache County jail as of Thursday, according to inmate records. Utah authorities have asked that he not be granted bail until the federal judge rules on the request to revoke his house arrest and detain him.
YoungBoy Never Broke Again (aka NBA YoungBoy) was arrested Tuesday (April 16) in Utah, where he has been under house arrest for more than two years while awaiting trial on federal gun charges. The rapper (real name Kentrell Gaulden) was arrested on seven charges ranging from drug and gun possession to identity fraud, according to […]
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Legal experts raise concerns about Tennessee’s new ELVIS Act and other laws aimed at AI-powered voice cloning; Jelly Roll faces a trademark lawsuit from a Philadelphia wedding band with the same name; Taylor Swift and other artists get their music back on TikTok; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Are New AI Voice Laws Going Too Far?
State and federal lawmakers across the country are scrambling to crack down on voice cloning – an effort cheered on by the music industry and artists. But some legal experts are worried such laws might be an “overreaction” that could have unintended consequences.
With last month’s enactment of the ELVIS Act, Tennessee became the first state in the country to pass legislation aimed at protecting artists from situations like last year’s infamous fake Drake song. At least five other states are considering similar bills, and a federal version is currently being debated on Capitol Hill.
Trending on Billboard
Those laws address a very real problem – namely, that artificial intelligence tools have made it far easier to convincingly mimic a real person’s voice, and existing laws seem only to provide them with limited recourse to stop it.
But while legislative efforts to fix that have been broadly supported by the music industry, they’ve met a more mixed reaction among some legal experts, who are concerned that the rush to pass new laws could lead to collateral damage for free speech and other “innocuous” behavior – ranging from tribute bands to interpolations.
Other top stories this week…
JELLY ROLL TRADEMARK SUIT – The rapper-turned-country star was hit with a trademark infringement lawsuit from a well-known Philadelphia wedding band that has used the name Jellyroll for decades. The case claims that Jelly Roll’s increasing popularity over the past two years has flooded the market with the name, making it difficult for prospective clients to find “Philly’s favorite wedding band.”
TIKTOK & TAYLOR – Why is music from Taylor Swift and certain other Universal Music Group artists back on TikTok, despite an ongoing licensing feud that has seen the music giant pull its catalog from the social media platform for months? As explained by Billboard’s Elias Leight and Kristin Robinson, the answer mostly boils down to leverage and good lawyering.
LIVE NATION TO FACE SUIT – The U.S. Department of Justice is reportedly planning to sue Live Nation within a matter of weeks over alleged violations of federal antitrust laws, including that the company leveraged it dominant position over the live music industry to undermine competition for ticketing. The case follows years of antitrust criticism of Live Nation, which increased in intensity after the company’s botched handling of ticket sales for Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tour in November 2022.
NewJeans in LA on March 6, 2024.
Sami Drasin
K-POP DEFAMATION BATTLE – The K-pop group NewJeans asked a U.S. federal court to force Google to unmask an anonymous YouTube user so that the person can be criminally prosecuted in South Korea for posting “false and defamatory videos.” The case that highlighted the stark differences between defamation laws in America and Korea – where even true statements can get you hauled into court, and criminal convictions can lead to “imprisonment with labor for up to seven years.”
PANDORA HITS BACK AT MLC – The streaming service fired back at a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective that claims the company has failed to properly pay streaming royalties, calling the case a “gross overreach” based on a “legally incoherent position.” The case centers on whether Pandora’s free ad-supported service is an “interactive” platform like Spotify, or more similar to a “noninteractive” radio broadcast – a key distinction under the federal copyright laws that govern royalty payments.
FAKE MERCH, REAL PROBLEMS – Bootleg artist merchandise is a big problem, as attorneys for the biggest stars in the world say they send countless takedown notices annually but that they face “a game of Whack-a-Mole” with few easy answers. Go read Billboard’s story from Steve Knopper, who chatted with numerous lawyers on the front lines in the war against fake merch.
RADIO RIGHTS SETTLEMENT – Global Music Rights, Irving Azoff’s boutique performance rights organization that reps Bruce Springsteen, Bruno Mars, Prince, Drake and others, settled a copyright infringement lawsuit in which it had accused seven Vermont radio stations of refusing to license the group’s music.
Pandora is firing back at a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the MLC) that claims the company has failed to properly pay streaming royalties, calling the case a “gross overreach” based on a “legally incoherent position.”
The MLC — the group created by Congress in 2018 to collect streaming royalties — filed the lawsuit earlier this year, accusing Pandora (a unit of SiriusXM) of misclassifying the nature of its streaming service to avoid paying the kind of higher royalties owed by “interactive” platforms like Spotify.
But in its first response to the case filed on Tuesday (April 16), Pandora calls the MLC’s lawsuit a “wild overreach” that “distorts the Pandora experience” — and one filed by an entity that is not even legally empowered to bring such cases.
Trending on Billboard
“The MLC … was intended to be a neutral intermediary charged with collecting and distributing royalties under the blanket license,” Pandora writes. “It is not authorized to play judge and jury over a streaming service’s legal compliance, nor was it created … to pursue legal frolics and detours such as this one.”
Pandora’s lawyers also say the lawsuit is based on a “a legally incoherent position” that has never been raised by the music companies for whom the MLC is collecting royalties: “The MLC seems to think it knows something the entire music industry does not.”
A rep for the MLC did not immediately return a request for comment.
At the heart of the lawsuit against Pandora is the distinction between “interactive” platforms like Spotify or Apple Music, which allow users to pick their songs on demand, and “noninteractive” platforms that provide an experience more like radio. It’s a key dividing line since interactive and noninteractive services pay very different royalties under different systems.
Though Pandora offers a premium tier with on-demand functionality, it has long treated Pandora Free — the core radio-like product that fueled the company’s rise in the late 2000s — as a noninteractive service, since it largely serves users a mix of songs based on their preferences.
But in a February lawsuit, the MLC argued that Pandora Free had crossed the line into “interactive” status by offering so-called “Sponsored Premium Access” sessions, which allow users to briefly play specific songs in return for watching ads. As a result, the MLC argued that Pandora owed the same kind of royalties for Pandora Free as services like YouTube or Spotify pay.
“Pandora provides even greater interactive access and functionality than these other ad-supported interactive streaming services,” the MLC wrote. “Despite the interactive functionality of Pandora Free, Pandora has failed to report in full Pandora Free usage to The MLC.”
In Tuesday’s response, Pandora’s lawyers argued that the MLC’s lawsuit “badly distorts reality” by making a “blatant mischaracterization of Pandora’s offerings.”
In their telling, the disputed “Sponsored Premium Access” sessions are merely brief previews of the company’s on-demand tier with “strict caps” on usage — not a wholesale feature that would “transform” Pandora Free “into an interactive service like Spotify or Apple Music.”
What’s more, Pandora says that feature was explicitly negotiated with music companies, who have never once objected to it or argued that it required Pandora to “fundamentally change its approach to licensing.”
“The MLC apparently thinks it knows better than the entire music publishing industry,” Pandora wrote. “Not only is the MLC operating far outside its administrative bounds, but it is also completely wrong on the law.”
Speaking with Billboard on Tuesday, George White, senior vp of music licensing at SiriusXM and Pandora, echoed the claims made by Pandora in the legal response.
“The lawsuit is really a gross overreach, especially when you consider that Pandora is such a well-known and well-established non-interactive music streaming service,” White said. “There are no checks and balances on the MLC. We believe that’s something, as part of the MLC redesignation, that the Copyright Office really needs to consider.”
White was alluding to the Copyright Office’s ongoing “redesignation process” of the MLC — a five-year check-up required by Music Modernization Act to ensure that the organization is functioning effectively. The first-ever redesignation started in January and is set to wrap up later this year.
