Legal News
Page: 31
Diddy was arrested in New York on Monday night (Sept. 16) after being indicted by a grand jury on unknown charges, The New York Times and other outlets report. According to TMZ, Diddy was taken into federal custody at the FBI field office in Manhattan. The rap mogul (real name: Sean Combs) has been hit […]
The U.S. government and TikTok will go head-to-head in federal court on Monday as oral arguments begin in a consequential legal case that will determine if – or how — a popular social media platform used by nearly half of all Americans will continue to operate in the country.
Attorneys for the two sides will appear before a panel of judges at the federal appeals court in Washington. TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, are challenging a U.S. law that requires them to break ties or face a ban in the U.S. by mid-January. The legal battle is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was a culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. But TikTok argues the law runs afoul of the First Amendment while other opponents claim it mirrors crackdowns sometimes seen in authoritarian countries abroad.
Trending on Billboard
In court documents submitted over the summer, the Justice Department emphasized the government’s two primary concerns. First, TikTok collects vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Second, the U.S. says the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.
TikTok has repeatedly said it does not share U.S. user data with the Chinese government and that concerns the government has raised have never been substantiated. In court documents, attorneys for both TikTok and its parent company have argued that members of Congress sought to punish the platform based on propaganda they perceived to be on TikTok. The companies also claimed divestment is not possible and that the app would have to shut down by Jan. 19 if the courts don’t step in to block the law.“Even if divestiture were feasible, TikTok in the United States would still be reduced to a shell of its former self, stripped of the innovative and expressive technology that tailors content to each user,” the companies said in a legal brief filed in June. “It would also become an island, preventing Americans from exchanging views with the global TikTok community.”
Opponents of the law stress a ban would also cause disruptions in the world of marketing, retail and in the lives of many different content creators, some of whom also sued the government in May. TikTok is covering the legal costs for that lawsuit, which the court has consolidated with the company’s complaint and another filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc.
Though the government’s primary reasoning for the law is public, significant portions of its court filings include classified information that has been redacted and hidden from public view. The companies have asked the court to reject the secret filings or appoint a district judge who can ferret through the material, which the government has opposed because it will cause a delay in the case. If admitted into the court, legal experts say those secret filings could make it nearly impossible to know some of the factors that could play a part in the eventual ruling.
In one of the redacted statements submitted in late July, the Justice Department claimed TikTok took direction from the Chinese government about content on its platform, without disclosing additional details about when or why those incidents occurred. Casey Blackburn, a senior U.S. intelligence official, wrote in a legal statement that ByteDance and TikTok “have taken action in response” to Chinese government demands “to censor content outside of China.” Though the intelligence community had “no information” that this has happened on the platform operated by TikTok in the U.S., Blackburn said there is a risk it “may” occur.
In a separate document submitted to court, the DOJ said the U.S. is “not required to wait until its foreign adversary takes specific detrimental actions before responding to such a threat.”
The companies, however, argue the government could have taken a more tailored approach to resolve its concerns.
During high-stakes negotiations with the Biden administration more than two years ago, TikTok presented the government with a draft 90-page agreement that allows a third party to monitor the platform’s algorithm, content moderation practices and other programming. TikTok says it has spent more than $2 billion to voluntarily implement some of these measures, which include storing U.S. user data on servers controlled by the tech giant Oracle. But it said a deal was not reached because government officials essentially walked away from the negotiating table in August 2022.
Justice officials have argued complying with the draft agreement is impossible, or would require extensive resources, due to the size and the technical complexity of TikTok. The Justice Department also said the only thing that would resolve the government’s concerns is severing the ties between TikTok and ByteDance given the porous relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese companies.
But some observers have wondered whether such a move would accelerate the so-called “decoupling” between the U.S. and its strategic rival at a time when other China-founded companies, such as Shein and Temu, are also making a big splash in the West. Last week, the Biden administration proposed rules that would crack down on duty-free products being shipped directly from China.
For its part, ByteDance has publicly said TikTok is not up for sale. But that has not stopped some investors, including former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, from announcing bids to purchase the platform. However, even if such a sale would occur, it would most likely be devoid of TikTok’s coveted algorithm, leaving a big question mark on whether the platform would be capable of serving up the type of personally tailored videos that users have come to expect.
The political alignments on the issue are playing out in unconventional ways.
The law, which passed with bipartisan approval in Congress, had encountered resistance from some progressive and Republican lawmakers who voiced concerns about giving the government the power to ban a platform used by 170 million Americans. Former President Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok while in office, is now opposing a ban because that would help its rival, Facebook, a platform Trump continues to criticize over his 2020 election loss.
In court, free speech and social justice groups have submitted amicus briefs in support of TikTok, arguing it restricts the First Amendment rights of users and suppresses the speech of minority communities by disrupting a tool many of them use to advocate for causes online. Some libertarian groups with ties to ByteDance investor Jeff Yass have also filed briefs supporting the company.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has received the backing of more than 20 Republican attorneys general, former national security officials and China-focused human rights groups who are asking the court to uphold the law.
Donald Trump infringed copyrights by using Eddy Grant’s iconic “Electric Avenue” in a 2020 campaign video without permission, a federal judge ruled Friday (Sept. 13), rejecting Trump’s argument that he made legal fair use of the song.
Grant sued Trump in 2020 after the then-president used his 1982 hit in a social media video attacking Joe Biden. Grant said he reacted with “dismay” when he began receiving inquiries asking if he had approved the Republican candidate’s use of his music.
Trump’s lawyers had argued the video was shielded under copyright’s fair use doctrine, which allows for the “transformative” re-use of protected works in certain situations. But in Friday’s ruling, Judge John G. Koeltl sharply rejected that argument.
Trending on Billboard
“In this case, the video has a very low degree of transformativeness, if any at all,” the judge wrote. “The video is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad.”
A spokesperson and an attorney for the Trump campaign did not immediately return requests for comment.
Trump has repeatedly faced blowback amid the 2024 election from artists who don’t want him to use their music. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out or threatened action, and the White Stripes and the estate of Isaac Hayes have both filed lawsuits against him and his campaign.
Four years earlier, Grant filed a similar case over Trump’s “wrongful and willful” use of “Electric Avenue,” a funky, reggae-infused track about the 1981 Brixton riot, named for a road running through that London neighborhood. The song reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 in the summer of 1983 and ultimately spent 22 weeks on the chart.
The video at issue, shared by Trump on Twitter, featured a red “Trump” train outrunning a handcar driven by Biden, as audio clips of Biden’s speeches played above Grant’s 1982 hit. Grant’s attorneys said the campaign had refused to remove the clip even after they were warned — meaning that Trump was acting as if he was “above the law.”
Facing those allegations, Trump’s legal team argued that the video amounted to fair use, claiming the campaign had transformed Grant’s song into a vehicle to criticize Biden. In 2021, Judge Koeltl hinted that he would likely reject that argument on the grounds that it “misapprehends” how fair use works, but he said it was too early to decide the issue.
On Friday, the judge made good on his warnings, largely adopting the same rationale as his 2021 decision. He noted that Trump’s video “did not edit the song’s lyrics, vocals, or instrumentals at all” and had “offered no justification for their extensive borrowing.”
Trump’s attorneys had argued that the video had “transformed Grant’s original conception of ‘Electric Avenue’ as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure.” But the judge was entirely unswayed by that defense — saying that it would only count as fair use if Trump had used the song to attack Grant, not Biden.
“The animation does not use ‘Electric Avenue’ as a vehicle to deliver its satirical message, and it makes no effort to poke fun at the song or Grant,” Judge Koeltl wrote, quoting directly from his earlier decision.
Friday’s ruling means that Trump and his campaign have been held legally liable for copyright infringement, but it leaves undecided the amount he must ultimately pay Grant in damages. That issue will be resolved in future proceedings.
An attorney for Grant did not immediately return a request for comment.
Sean “Diddy” Combs is seeking to overturn a $100 million sexual assault judgment won against him by a Michigan inmate earlier this week, claiming he was never served with the “frivolous” lawsuit.
In an emergency motion filed Thursday, attorneys for the embattled rapper said he had learned about Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith’s lawsuit and massive judgment from media coverage – and that the case would have been easily dismissed if Combs had been given a fair chance to respond.
“This is a frivolous lawsuit against a prominent businessman, based on obvious fabrications, filed by a convicted rapist and serial litigant with an overactive imagination and a thirst for fame,” Combs’ lawyers write.
The huge award, issued by a Michigan state judge on Monday, was what’s known as a default judgment — a kind of legal award granted when an accused party doesn’t respond to a legal action. Court records show that attorneys for Combs never participated in the case nor filed any kind of response.
But in Thursday’s filings, they say that’s because they were never been legally served with the allegations – a crucial first step in any American lawsuit: “Had Mr. Combs been notified in a timely manner of these outrageous claims, he would have defended himself, as he is prepared to do now. But he did not have that opportunity.”
At a hearing last month, the judge overseeing the case said Cardello-Smith had supplied sufficient proof that he properly served Combs via certified mail, which requires confirmation of receipt. But in Thursday’s response, Combs lawyers say that the letter was not sent to the rapper’s primary residence and it had not actually been signed by him personally.
“Accordingly, the default judgment must be set aside,” lawyers for Diddy write.
Once one of the most powerful men in the music industry, Diddy has been hit with at least eight civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse over the past year, including claims by ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura that were later followed by a video showing him assaulting her. The hip-hop mogul is also facing an apparent federal criminal investigation after authorities raided his homes in March.
Cardello-Smith sued Combs in June, claiming the rapper had spiked his drink and sexually assaulted him at a party in 1997. But in Thursday’s filings, the rapper’s lawyers said the inmate’s allegations are “objectively unbelievable” and that “no lawsuit could be more frivolous.”
“Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually assaulted in 1997, but he cannot keep his story straight as to where this supposedly occurred,” Combs lawyers write. “Aside from the purported assault, plaintiff alleges a fantastical conspiracy between Mr. Combs … and numerous high-ranking Wayne County judicial and law enforcement officials.”
As attorneys for Diddy repeatedly pointed out in their filings, Cardello-Smith, 51, is serving multiple, decades-long sentences for a variety of crimes, including first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of kidnapping. The earliest he can be released from prison is 2036.
The lawsuit against Combs is not the first civil action Cardello-Smith has filed from behind bars. Last year, he sued a Detroit-area Catholic archdiocese, alleging he had been sexually abused by a priest and others between 1979 and 1993. The case was dismissed last month by state appeals court, which ruled that Cardello-Smith’s allegations were barred by the statute of limitations.
In their response Thursday, lawyers for Diddy said that same defense would also apply to the current lawsuit: “As ridiculous as the allegations are, if every word of the complaint were true, the action would still be completely nonviable because the statute of limitation on the claims asserted expired almost 17 years before the case was filed.”
BMI is taking SiriusXM to court after the two sides failed to reach a deal on royalty rates during more than two years of negotiations, arguing that the satcaster is “no longer a startup” and must pay more to songwriters.
In a petition filed in court today, BMI asked a Manhattan federal judge to uphold a higher royalty rate it has asked SiriusXM to pay – citing increased revenue for the radio giant and a shift toward more lucrative digital streaming.
“SiriusXM’s financial performance, and its expansion of its digital offerings, make clear it is no longer a startup in a nascent industry,” lawyers for the rights group wrote. “Yet, despite achieving its secure and successful position, Sirius has continued to pay songwriters — who create the music essential to SiriusXM’s business — at rates that are below those negotiated decades ago when satellite radio was an infant industry with an uncertain future.”
A spokeswoman for SiriusXM declined to comment on BMI’s case.
Trending on Billboard
BMI is a so-called performance rights organization that collects copyright royalties owed to publishers and songwriters when their songs are performed publicly, offering blanket licenses that allow for the use of more than 22 million tracks. When BMI cannot agree with a licensee like SiriusXM, either side can ask a federal judge to decide the dispute and set a reasonable rate.
In doing so on Thursday, BMI pointed to what it sees as key shifts in SiriusXM’s business model since the two last negotiated a licensing deal in 2018 – namely, an increasing reliance on internet streaming rather than old-school satellite radio.
“As a result of these changes, SiriusXM’s business has shifted and is becoming more akin to a music streaming service than a traditional satellite radio or broadcast radio,” BMI’s attorneys wrote. “Digital music services pay higher rates to BMI than satellite radio, and the new SiriusXM rate should reflect this expansion of digital performances.”
The specific terms of the royalty rate that BMI is seeking from SiriusXM were not disclosed in court filings because BMI said it was “competitively sensitive.” The new rate would cover the period from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2026.
In a statement announcing the case on Thursday, BMI said that songwriters “should not have to accept an outdated rate that significantly undervalues their music.”
“After attempting to negotiate with SiriusXM in good faith for more than two years, we were compelled to file this action given their insistence on underpaying the creators of the music that drives the majority of their business,” BMI president Mike O’Neill wrote. “We will continue to fight for fair and appropriate rates when we believe the music created by our songwriters and composers is being significantly undervalued.”
The filing of the new case was celebrated Thursday by the National Music Publishers’ Association, with president and CEO David Israelite saying the group was “extremely pleased” with BMI’s decision to “demand what’s fair.”
“Companies like SiriusXM have massive profit margins fueled by music creators,” Israelite said in a statement. “We fully support BMI in their fight for the value of songs.”
BMI isn’t the only rights group in a dispute with SiriusXM over its shift toward streaming. In a lawsuit last year, SoundExchange accused the company of using bookmaking trickery – namely, manipulating how it bundles its satellite and streaming offerings – as part of a scheme to “grossly underpay” royalties by more than $150 million. SiriusXM later fired back, denying the lawsuit’s “misguided allegations.” That case remains pending.
Go read BMI’s full petition against SiriusXM here:
A federal judge says Madison Square Garden owner James Dolan must sit for a deposition over the infamous 2017 ejection of ex-NBA player Charles Oakley from the Manhattan arena, ruling that the CEO “had a courtside seat” for the incident.
MSG had argued that Dolan has little relevant info for the remaining issues in the long-running lawsuit, in which Oakley is accusing the company of assault and battery. MSG’s lawyers suggested that the bid for a deposition was just one more effort to “harass” Dolan amid a “rancorous” lawsuit.
But in a ruling Tuesday, Judge Richard Sullivan rejected those arguments and ordered Dolan to be deposed – saying that the executive had “a courtside seat to the action here” and “likely possesses relevant knowledge that cannot be obtained from other witnesses.”
Trending on Billboard
“At the most basic level, Dolan was an eyewitness to the removal of Oakley and can provide personal observations as to Oakley’s behavior that evening and the force used to remove him,” the judge wrote.
In a statement Thursday, an MSG spokesperson told Billboard: “This is just another example of how the legal maneuverings of Charles Oakley and his lawyers continue to waste the time and resources of everyone involved.” In his own statement, Oakley’s attorney Valdi Licul said: “We are pleased the court rejected Mr. Dolan’s efforts to avoid giving sworn testimony about Mr. Oakley’s removal from MSG. We look forward to questioning him under oath.”
Oakley, a beloved former New York Knick with a contentious relationship with Dolan, was removed from the Garden on Feb. 8, 2017 after an altercation with security guards. Accounts of the incident varied widely; Oakley claimed he had done nothing wrong, but MSG said he had engaged in “abusive behavior” before he was kicked out.
Dolan is the majority owner/CEO of Madison Square Garden Entertainment, a live music giant that operates the famed NYC arena in addition to Manhattan’s Radio City Music Hall, the Las Vegas Sphere and other prominent venues. He is also the majority owner of Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., which owns the Knicks.
Months after the incident, Oakley sued both Dolan and MSG, alleging a wide range of legal wrongdoing. Since then, the case has been on a seven-year journey up and down the federal court system.
Sullivan initially tossed the lawsuit in 2020, but a federal appeals court later overturned the ruling and revived the case. After litigation resumed, the same judge later tossed it again, pointing to video evidence showing Oakley had “unilaterally escalated the confrontation, leading to his eventual forcible removal.” But last year, an appeals court overturned parts of that ruling, too.
The current iteration of the lawsuit targets only MSG, not Dolan personally, and only includes claims of assault and battery, which are centered on whether the company’s employees used unreasonable force to remove him from the arena.
With Oakley’s lawyers demanding a deposition to help prove those claims, MSG argued that Dolan was a so-called apex witness – the kind of top-level executive that judges rarely pull into court cases unless they’re directly involved in the alleged wrongdoing.
But in his decision on Tuesday, Judge Sullivan said that Dolan was a “far cry from the prototypical apex witness,” since Oakley claims that Dolan personally spoke with a security guard prior to the incident and later signaled for them to remove Oakley from the arena.
“Dolan is one of only two people who can attest to the contents of that conversation,” the judge wrote. “Only Dolan can explain whether he signaled the guard and, if so, what his signal was intended to convey.”
Sullivan didn’t give Oakley’s attorneys everything they wanted. They were also seeking a court order that would allow them to dig through four years of Dolan’s emails, but the judge gave them only access to emails from a three-week span immediately after the incident.
“Oakley has not articulated how Dolan’s emails from years after the incident are likely to yield evidence concerning whether the MSG defendants used reasonable force when removing Oakley from MSG on the night in question,” the judge wrote. “Such extensive discovery would be disproportional to the needs of this case.”
No date for a deposition has yet been scheduled in court records, and Dolan’s attorneys could seek the challenge Tuesday’s ruling before he actually sits down with Oakley’s attorneys.
Sean “Diddy” Combs is facing yet another abuse lawsuit, this time filed by a participant on MTV’s Making the Band and longtime member of his band who says he harassed and assaulted her during “years of inhumane working conditions.”
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, Dawn Richard says the embattled hip hop mogul “manipulated” her into thinking that “abuse and exploitation were required for female artists to succeed in the music industry.”
Richard claims she witnessed Combs abuse his ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura on multiple occasions – and that recent lawsuits from Ventura and others sparked her to speak out.
“As more women courageously come forward, plaintiff has been empowered by this collective strength and now adds her voice to the growing chorus of victims bravely sharing their harrowing stories,” lawyers for Richard write. “Together, they seek justice and stand in solidarity, as the latest victims of the #Me Too movement in the music industry.”
Once one of the most powerful men in the music industry, Diddy has been hit with at least eight civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse over the past year, including claims by Ventura that were later followed by a video showing him assaulting her. The hip-hop mogul is also facing an apparent federal criminal investigation after authorities raided his homes in March.
Though the rapper has denied the legal allegations against him, he issued an apology in May over his conduct captured on the video of the Ventura attack: “My behavior on that video is inexcusable. I take full responsibility for my actions in that video.”
In her new lawsuit, Richard says she first met Combs after she was selected for season 3 of Making The Band, a popular MTV reality show in the early 2000s featuring aspiring artists working under the tutelage of Combs.
She was eventually chosen as a winner of that season and joined the Diddy-run girl group Danity Kane, which released albums two albums in the late 2000s. When the band broke up in 2009, Richard says she transitioned into a member of another band called Diddy – Dirty Money.
During each stop in the Diddy universe, Richard says she was subjected to harmful behavior. While filming the TV show, she says Combs “deprived Ms. Richard and her Danity Kane bandmates of basic needs such as adequate food and sleep.” As a member of Dirty Money, he says the mogul repeatedly harassed and assaulted her, including groping her during fitting sessions.
Richard also claims to have witnessed illegal behavior toward others, including a 2009 party in Atlanta after the Soul Train Awards in which she says she was Combs “arranged for dozens of young women and girls — some of whom appeared to be underage – to be transported to the party.”
“Many of them appeared lethargic or passed out while Mr. Combs and his guests performed sexual acts on them,” Richard’s lawyers write. “Ms. Richard felt shocked and horrified at the sight of Mr. Combs and his guests violating incapacitated young women.”
She also claims to have seen specific acts of abuse toward Combs’ ex-partners. In one, she says she witnessed his ex-wife, Kim Porter, leaving his studio “in tears with visible facial injuries including a lacerated lip.” On “numerous” other occasions, Richard says she saw Combs abuse “brutally beat” Ventura.
“His persistent abuse included choking and strangling Ms. Ventura, striking her with his hands and with objects, slapping her, punching her, and throwing items at her, including a scalding hot pan,” attorneys for Richards write.
Ventura sued Combs over similar allegations in November, but the pair reached a settlement to end the lawsuit just days later.
In technical terms, Richard is accusing Combs of a slew of specific forms of wrongdoing, including violating New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act and California’s Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, as well as various state and federal workplace protections against sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. She’s also accusing him of assault, sexual battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit also features intellectual property claims, including that Diddy infringed copyrights to her music.
A representative for Combs did not immediately return a request for comment.
When Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris for president on Tuesday (Sept. 10), the singer said she was spurred to action by her fears about artificial intelligence — namely, an incident last month in which Donald Trump posted AI-generated images that falsely claimed the superstar’s support.
Swift’s endorsement, which landed on Instagram just minutes after the conclusion of the Harris-Trump debate, called the Democratic nominee a “steady-handed, gifted leader” who “fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” But before those reasons, she pointed first to last month’s deepfake debacle.
Trending on Billboard
“It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation,” Swift wrote. “It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth.”
Her fears are well-founded, as Swift has been one most prominent victims of AI deepfakes. At the start of 2024, a flood of fake, sexually explicit images of Swift were posted to the social media site X (formerly Twitter). Some were viewed millions of times before they were removed.
At the time, Woodrow Hartzog, a professor at Boston University School of Law who studies privacy and technology law, told Billboard that the Swift deepfakes highlighted a “particularly toxic cocktail” that was bubbling up on social media in 2024: “It’s an existing problem, mixed with these new generative AI tools and a broader backslide in industry commitments to trust and safety.”
Then last month, Trump posted several AI-generated images to social media falsely suggesting Swift had endorsed him. Several showed women in t-shirts with the slogan “Swifties for Trump”; another showed Swift herself, dressed up as Uncle Sam alongside the message, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.” Trump himself responded to the false endorsement: “I accept!”
At the time, experts told Billboard that Swift likely had grounds to file a lawsuit over Trump’s phony endorsement by citing her right of publicity — the legal power to control how your name, image and likeness are used by others.
But they also predicted — accurately, it turns out — that the star was better off fighting Trump’s fake endorsement with a legitimate endorsement of her own, broadcast across social media to her millions of die-hard fans: “I think Swift probably has more effective political rather than legal recourse here.”
Whether or not Swift’s endorsement has its intended effect, the next president will have a chance to shape federal policy on AI and deepfakes. Numerous bills aimed at regulating the cutting-edge tech are pending before Congress, including one that would create a federal right of publicity that would allow people like Swift to more easily sue over the unauthorized use of their likeness.
Johnson & Johnson is facing a lawsuit that accuses the pharma giant of “rampant infringement” of copyrighted instrumental music in YouTube and Facebook videos.
In a complaint filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Associated Production Music (APM) claims that J&J released nearly 80 different internet videos featuring unlicensed “production music” — an industry term for stock tracks created for use in videos, podcasts and other content.
“At no point did defendant ever obtain APM’s license, authorization, or consent to synchronize the Recordings with the Videos,” the company’s lawyers write. “Moreover, despite being repeatedly contacted by APM regarding Defendant’s unlicensed uses of the Recordings, Defendant has refused to obtain proper licenses or admit wrongdoing.”
APM, a joint venture of Sony Music Publishing and Universal Music Publishing, describes itself as the top purveyor of production music in the country, controlling huge libraries of songs that have appeared in TV shows (Stranger Things, Game of Thrones and Spongebob Squarepants), movies (Lady Bird, The Shape of Water and The Big Sick) and video games (Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and MLB: The Show). One particularly notable APM song is “Heavy Action,” the theme to Monday Night Football.
Trending on Billboard
Earlier this year, APM says it discovered that J&J had been using the company’s songs without permission. The lawsuit lists out 79 different videos featuring 30 different APM songs, like a YouTube video posted by J&J in May 2021 called “Nurse Leaders Disrupting Healthcare.” The video, which features an upbeat instrumental track behind narration, allegedly used an APM track called “Driving Inspiration” without securing a license.
The lawsuit is light on details, and it’s unclear how a sophisticated company came to release dozens of videos without securing licenses for the music. A representative for J&J did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations.
Though the songs in question are hardly Hot 100 hits, intentionally using them without a license would still be a costly decision for J&J. Under federal copyright law, a judge can award as much as $150,000 per song infringed if a defendant acted willfully — nearly $12 million for all the songs involved.
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: Prosecutors file a first-of-its-kind criminal case against an alleged streaming fraudster who made $10 million with fake songs; the White Stripes file a copyright case against Donald Trump over use of their music; Spotify wins a strongly-worded ruling dismissing a long-running lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Streaming Fraud Finally Goes To Court
When Manhattan federal prosecutors indicted a North Carolina musician named Michael Smith last week, accusing him of stealing $10 million in streaming royalties as part of a “brazen fraud scheme,” they told a story that much of the music industry already knew. Streaming fraud – artificially boosting traffic for certain songs – has been a growing problem for years. One study found that 1% to 3% of plays in France in 2021 were fraudulent; a 2022 report by fraud-detection service Beatdapp estimated that more than 10% of global streams were fake. And this isn’t the scam from “Office Space,” stealing fractions of a penny from a faceless tech giant. Because royalties are calculated as a percentage of a finite pie, every phony stream represents real money being diverted away from music that consumers actually played and the artists who created it. In the first-of-its-kind indictment, the feds say Smith created thousands of fake songs, then used an army of bots to play them billions of times on Spotify and other streamers. At one point, Smith estimated that he could play his songs 661,440 times each day, raking in as much as $1.2 million per year. Prosecutors say Smith’s plot was aided by artificial intelligence – another growing problem for the industry. When he couldn’t create enough fake tracks to make the scam work, Smith allegedly partnered with an unnamed executive at an A.I. music company to produce grist for his mill, funneling money back in the form of percentage cuts. For more details go read Kristin Robinson’s stories – on the filing of the charges, and on an AI company with strong ties to the accused fraudster.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
“SUES FASCISTS” – The White Stripes filed a copyright lawsuit against Donald Trump for using their iconic “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post, arguing that any association with the president was “offensive” because they “vehemently oppose” his policies and his bid for another term in the White House. In announcing the case, Jack White included a screenshot of the complaint with the caption “this machine sues fascists” – an allusion to Woody Guthrie’s famous use of a sticker reading “this machine kills fascists” on his guitar during World War II. The White Stripes are the latest in a long list of musical artists to threaten or take legal action against Trump over his use of music. LOSE YOUR CASE – Spotify defeated a long-running lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, that claimed the rapper’s music had been streamed illegally “billions” of times on the platform. Rather than order Spotify to pay, the judge sharply criticized Eight Mile for suing in the first place, ruling that the company had effectively manufactured the lawsuit in an effort to win legal damages. “Eight Mile Style was not a hapless victim,” the judge wrote. DIDDY DAMAGES – A Michigan inmate named Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith won a $100 million default judgment against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit — an eye-popping figure that was handed down after the rapper did not show up in court or file any formal response to the case. Following the ruling, Combs’ lawyers strongly denied that the rapper was served with the lawsuit and said he “looks forward to having this judgment swiftly dismissed.” GUESS WHO TRUCE – The members of classic rock band The Guess Who settled a bitter trademark lawsuit in which two bandmates (Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings) referred to a recent iteration of the group run by two others (Jim Kale and Garry Peterson) as nothing more than a “cover band.” COPYRIGHT CLAPBACK – Verizon fired back at a lawsuit filed by Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment over allegations of “staggering” piracy on its network. The labels claim Verizon “buried its head in the sand” and enabled illegal filesharing, but in a motion to dismiss, the telecom giant blasted the “legally deficient” premise of the case: “When people do bad things online, their internet service providers are not typically the ones to blame. This lawsuit claims otherwise.”