Legal News
Page: 46
Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store — the same issue that went to trial in another case that could result in even bigger changes.
Although Google struck the deal with state attorneys general in September, the settlement’s terms weren’t revealed until late Monday in documents filed in San Francisco federal court. The disclosure came a week after a federal court jury rebuked Google for deploying anticompetitive tactics in its Play Store for Android apps.
The settlement with the states includes $630 million to compensate U.S. consumers funneled into a payment processing system that state attorneys general alleged drove up the prices for digital transactions within apps downloaded from the Play Store. That store caters to the Android software that powers most of the world’s smartphones.
Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing. Those commissions generated billions of dollars in profit annually for Google, according to evidence presented in the recent trial focused on its Play Store.
Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023. The estimated 102 million U.S. consumers who made in-app purchases during that time frame are supposed to be automatically notified about various options for how they can receive their cut of the money.
Another $70 million of the pre-trial settlement will cover the penalties and other costs that Google is being forced to pay to the states.
Although Google is forking over a sizeable sum, it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling.
Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used.
The makers of Android apps will also gain more flexibility to offer alternative payment choices to consumers instead of having transactions automatically processed through the Play Store and its commission system. Apps will also be able to promote lower prices available to consumers who choose an alternate to the Play Store’s payment processing.
Investors seemed unfazed by the settlement as shares in Google’s corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., rose slightly in Tuesday’s midday trading.
The settlement represents a “loud and clear message to Big Tech — attorneys general across the country are unified, and we are prepared to use the full weight of our collective authority to ensure free and fair access to the digital marketplace,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Wilson White, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, framed the deal as a positive for the company, despite the money and concessions it entails. The settlement “builds on Android’s choice and flexibility, maintains strong security protections, and retains Google’s ability to compete with other (software) makers, and invest in the Android ecosystem for users and developers,” White wrote in a blog post.
Although the state attorneys general hailed the settlement as a huge win for consumers, it didn’t go far enough for Epic Games, which spearheaded the attack on Google’s app store practices with an antitrust lawsuit filed in August 2020.
Epic, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, rebuffed the settlement in September and instead chose to take its case to trial, even though it had already lost on most of its key claims in a similar trial targeting Apple and its iPhone app store in 2021.
The Apple trial, though, was decided by a federal judge instead of the jury that vindicated Epic with a unanimous verdict that Google had built anticompetitive barriers around the Play Store. Google has vowed to appeal the verdict.
Corie Wright, Epic’s vice president of public policy, derided the states’ settlement as little more than a one-time payout that provides “no true relief for consumers or developers,” in a blog post.
In court documents, the attorneys general said they decided to settle because of significant risks posed by a trial, including the possibility that a jury may have thought their plan to seek $10.5 billion in damages was exorbitant. The attorneys general also cited for the potential of jurors becoming confused had their case been presented alongside Epic’s claims in the trial, as had been the original plan.
But now the Epic trial’s outcome nevertheless raises the specter of Google potentially being ordered to pay even more money as punishment for its past practices and making even more dramatic changes to its lucrative Android app ecosystem.
Those changes will be determined next year by U.S. District Judge James Donato, who presided over the Epic Games trial. Donato also still must approve Google’s Play Store settlement with the states.
“In the next phase of the case, Epic will seek meaningful remedies to truly open up the Android ecosystem so consumers and developers will genuinely benefit from the competition that U.S. antitrust laws were designed to promote,” Wright pledged.
Google faces an even bigger legal threat in another antitrust case targeting its dominant search engine that serves as the centerpiece of a digital ad empire that generates more than $200 billion in sales annually. Closing arguments in a trial pitting Google against the Justice Department are scheduled for early May before a federal judge in Washington D.C.
A federal judge is refusing to alter the conditions of NBA YoungBoy‘s house arrest to let him to spend more time in the recording studio creating music, unswayed by arguments from the rapper’s attorneys that his record sales have dropped as a result of his lockdown.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The rapper, who is currently under house arrest while awaiting trial on federal gun charges, had argued that he needs to be able to travel to the studio to “produce the quality of music that his fans expect” – and that his label had informed him that “sales have suffered” because he had not been able to do so.
But in a ruling Monday, Judge Shelly Dick denied that request. Although she loosened restrictions to allow YoungBoy (Kentrell DeSean Gaulden) more access to mental health treatments, the judge said his request for more studio time could potentially put people in harm’s way, including the rapper himself.
“The conditions imposed on Gaulden’s pretrial release are designed to reasonably assure the safety of both Gaulden and others,” Judge Dick wrote. “Given the vague bounds of the request, and in light of the history of violence aimed at Gaulden and those around him, the court is more troubled by the threat that the proposed modification imposes on Gaulden’s safety.”
Attorneys for YoungBoy did not immediately return a request for comment.
YoungBoy was indicted by Louisiana federal prosecutors in March 2021 on charges of “felon in possession of a firearm,” after he was allegedly found with two guns during a September 2020 incident in Baton Rouge. Possessing guns would be illegal for YoungBoy since the rapper was previously convicted in 2017 of aggravated assault with a firearm.
When YoungBoy was arrested in Los Angeles on those charges, another gun was found in his car, leading to a similar case brought by California federal prosecutors. Following a three-day trial last year, YoungBoy was acquitted on that charge. But he’s still facing a looming trial in Louisiana over the original 2021 indictment.
In October, his attorneys moved to alter the terms of his pre-trial house arrest, citing the “deterioration of Mr. Gaulden’s mental health due to the long period of social isolation.” In addition to asking for more medical treatment, they warned that his career was in “jeopardy” due to his “seclusion from the fans that consume his music.” They said that “analysis” by his label (Atlantic Records) indicated that “sales have suffered due to his limited ability to produce quality recordings.”
“Music and entertainment is Mr. Gaulden’s only way of earning a living and supporting his family,” the star’s attorneys said. “Mr. Gaulden has exhausted all his options for recording in his home with a very limited production crew.”
They told the judge that YoungBoy “needs to be able to travel to and from recording studios on occasion in order to continue to produce the quality of music that his fans expect.” They also asked for the ability to “film studio music videos to promote his music.”
“No professional recording artist can survive and maintain a career without studio quality audio & video production,” YoungBoy’s lawyers wrote.
But in a response last month, federal prosecutors argued strongly against any such changes. They called the request “hopelessly vague” and warned that it “generates more questions than answers.”
“Where are the studios? Who is allowed there? Will individuals that are not allowed at his home be present at the studios? How many people will be at the studios?” prosecutors wrote in their filing. “Will the defendant’s ‘employment related’ studio activity be subject to the same time restrictions applicable to his home incarceration?
Notably, prosecutors pointed to previous statements from Atlantic Records CEO Julie Greenwald to support their point. During a hearing in 2021 over whether YoungBoy would be granted pre-trial release, Greenwald testified in court that the label would re-create a recording studio in his home to ensure that he was able to stay under house arrest rather than need to be held in jail.
“We would build a studio in the house that he would be staying to make sure he abides by the rules that he has to,” Greenwald said at the time, according to court transcripts. She said they would be “basically bringing his work environment to him” and that they “can get good recordings” from such a set up.
In their motions last month, prosecutors cited Greenwald’s testimony to undercut YoungBoy’s claims that he needed to travel to the recording studio to maintain his career.
“Given that the defendant’s work environment may be brought to him, there simply is no need for travel and participation in other undefined ‘employment related activity,’” prosecutors wrote.
Although Monday’s order denied YoungBoy’s request to change the rules themselves, the judge said he could “continue to seek Court-approval” for travel to a studio or other music-related requests on a case-by-case basis. And she granted his request for more flexibility to “attend medical appointments,” saying he could do so if they were “specifically approved in advance” by federal authorities.
YoungBoy’s trial is currently set to kick off in July 2024.
– Megan Thee Stallion agreed in October to settle a long-running legal battle against her former record label record label, 1501 Certified Entertainment. The deal came after more than three years of bitter litigation stemming from her accusation that 1501 duped the young artist into signing an unfair record deal in 2018 that was well below industry standards. That cleared the way for her to sign a distribution deal with Warner Music in December.
– Kesha and Dr. Luke reached a settlement in June to end a decade-long lawsuit accusing the pop star of defaming him in 2014 when she accused him of raping her in 2005. The agreement came on the eve of trial — and just a week after a New York court issued a key ruling that would have made it harder for Dr. Luke to win the case.
– DJ Envy, the host of the popular Breakfast Club hip-hop radio show, was sued over the summer by dozens of investors who claimed he was complicit in an alleged multi-million-dollar real estate investment scam in New Jersey perpetrated by celebrity real estate guru Cesar Pina. Envy denied the allegations and said he too was a victim of the fraud. But when federal prosecutors indicted Pina in October for running a “Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme,” they specifically noted that Pina had “partnered with a celebrity disc jockey and radio personality” to boost his reputation.
– New state laws restricting drag performances were struck down as unconstitutional, first in Tennessee, then in Florida, and finally in Texas, each time on the grounds that they likely violate freedom of speech. Such statutes are nominally aimed at protecting children from obscenity, but critics say existing laws already do that and that the new legislation is instead a thinly veiled attack on the LGBTQ community. The new laws have been closely watched by the music industry over concerns that aspects of concerts could run afoul of broad new restrictions.
– Tory Lanez was sentenced to 10 years in prison in August for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot during an argument, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident. The sentence came after Lanez was convicted on three felony counts at trial, a verdict that the singer is currently appealing.
– The two key remaining members of Journey — lead guitarist Neal Schon and keyboardist Jonathan Cain — battled in court over back-and-forth accusations related to band finances and a corporate American Express card. The lawsuit was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Journey’s internal dysfunction and legal issues, as detailed by Billboard’s Steve Knopper.
– A private feud between longtime members of the legendary rock band Mötley Crüe burst into public view in April when co-founder Mick Mars filed a lawsuit accusing his former “brothers” of tossing him to the curb after he said he could no longer tour due to a “tragic” disability called ankylosing spondylitis. The rest of Crüe, on the other hand, says they offered Mars “generous compensation” as a courtesy, but that he instead chose to file an “ugly public lawsuit.”
Lawyers for the Michael Jackson estate quietly threatened to sue a pop culture collectibles website this week over plans to auction off unreleased Jackson studio recordings that the estate claimed were “unquestionably stolen,” resulting in the items being withdrawn from sale.
Last month, Gotta Have Rock and Roll said it planned to auction more than two dozen masters tapes purportedly recorded by Jackson during 1994 sessions at The Hit Factory, a famed New York City studio. The auction house called the tapes “incredibly rare unreleased recordings” and said each would eventually sell for as much as $4000.
But after correspondence from attorneys for the Jackson estate that was obtained by Billboard, including an email from well-known litigator Alex Spiro earlier this week that threatened to seek an immediate court restraining order, the tapes are no longer listed on the auction site.
GHRR did not return a request for comment on the status of the tapes. A rep for the Jackson estate declined to comment.
The incident highlights the sometimes blurry line between legitimate rock and roll collectibles and goods that have been stolen from artists. Last year, three men were indicted in New York for attempting to auction Don Henley’s handwritten notes and lyrics for the Eagles album Hotel California; they claim they lawfully obtained the materials from a journalist who was simply given them.
The Jackson tapes, posted for sale as part of GHRR”s “Rock & Roll Pop Culture Winter Auction 2023,” cover 25 recordings that purportedly include “Oh Love,” “Sexy Love,” “Doing What My Heart,” “New Jelly” and many others. The site estimated that each tape, which it said was “an artifact ONLY with no copyright” with reproduction “STRICTLY prohibited,” would sell for between $2,000 and $4,000.
But in a letter dated Nov. 29, Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir warned that the tapes had been stolen. He demanded that Gotta Have Rock and Roll not only “cease and desist from any and all efforts to further auction these tape,” but also immediately return them.
“Neither Michael Jackson nor his record company, Sony Music Entertainment, ever sold or gave away master tapes from his recording sessions at The Hit Factory (or anywhere else),” Steinsapir wrote in the letter, obtained by Billboard. “These tapes were unquestionably stolen or otherwise taken without authorization. Accordingly, they are the property of the Jackson Estate.”
The letter was apparently unsuccessful.
On Tuesday, the estate contacted the Gotta Have Rock and Roll again, this time represented by Alex Spiro, a nationally prominent attorney who has previously represented Jay-Z, Megan Thee Stallion and Elon Musk in court. In an email to the auction house’s lawyer, Spiro noted that Gotta Have Rock and Roll had informed Steinsapir that it “will not comply with these demands.”
“We write to notify you that we intend to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction tomorrow (December 13) in New York Supreme Court,” Spiro wrote. “Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.”
Less than two hours later on Tuesday, the company’s attorney responded to Spiro with an email: “There is no contact information on your email. What is the best phone number to reach you?”
By Wednesday, the tapes had been removed from Gotta Have Rock and Roll’s site. The auction site still lists numerous Jackson items as part of the sale, including a “Michael Jackson Circa 1984 Owned & Worn Red Military Style Jacket” that they estimate will sell for more than $10,000. But the tapes, and the specific lot numbers they occupied, are no longer visible.
The auction house did not respond to specific questions from Billboard, including how the auction house came into possession of the tapes, and whether they had been returned to the estate.
It’s not the first time the Jackson estate has sued over materials allegedly stolen from the late star. In 2022, the estate sued Jeffré Phillips, who was once engaged to Michael’s sister La Toya Jackson, over allegations that he stole various materials from the singer’s Carolwood estate in the wake of his death. In October, the estate said that case had been “amicably resolved” after Phillips “voluntarily returned Michael Jackson’s property to the Estate.”
A California appeals court ruled Wednesday (Dec. 13) that Marilyn Manson’s former assistant can sue him for sexual assault, overturning an earlier decision that said she waited too long to bring her case.
In a 24-page opinion, California’s Second Appellate District revived a lawsuit filed by Ashley Walters that claims Manson subjected her to brutal treatment, including sexual harassment and discrimination, during the year that she worked for him from 2010 to 2011.
A lower court had ruled last year that Walters’ lawsuit, filed in 2021, was barred by the statute of limitations, which requires such cases to be filed within two years. But on Wednesday, the appeals court said Walters’ case was fair game under the so-called delayed discovery rule, as she claims the trauma of the incidents caused her to suppress the memories until 2020.
“Until she received diagnosis and treatment, Walters [says she] was unable to remember the repressed events, and once she did recall them, she was unable to immediately identify these events as abuse,” the court wrote. “These allegations of suppressed memories and psychological blocking are sufficient to withstand [dismissal].”
A representative for Manson declined to comment on the ruling. An attorney for Walters did not immediately return a request for comment.
Walters was one of several women who accused Manson of sexual abuse in 2021. His former fiancé Evan Rachel Wood accused him of grooming and sexual abuse on Twitter in February 2021, and then others, including Game of Thrones actress Esmé Bianco and model Ashley Morgan Smithine, filed lawsuits against him.
Manson has denied all of the accusations, and several of the cases have been dismissed or settled. Manson later sued Wood for defamation, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” other women to make such allegations, though that case was largely dismissed earlier this year.
In her lawsuit, Walters claimed that Manson subjected her to “sexual exploitation, manipulation and psychological abuse” while she worked for him as a personal assistant. The alleged abuse included whipping her and throwing her against a wall in a “a drug-induced rage”; forcing her to stay awake for 48 hours by feeding her cocaine; and having “offered” her sexually to friends and associates.
In June 2022, the case was dismissed for being filed past the statute of limitations. Walters argued then that she had suppressed the memories of Manson’s abuse until other women began coming forward, but the judge said during a hearing that he had not seen “sufficient facts” to invoke the delayed-discovery rule.
In Wednesday’s ruling overturning that decision, the appeals court did not say that Walters’ accusations against Manson were true. Instead, it merely said that her allegations were enough for the case to survive being dismissed at the outset. The court recounted various claims that, if proven true, would mean that Walters had truly not discovered the abuse until 2020.
“The complaint described the support group Walters joined in October 2020 and recounted the stories shared by the other abused women that ‘began to unlock new memories [Walters] repressed long ago as a result of her psychological trauma by being manipulated and threatened by Warner during and after her employment,’” the court wrote. “The complaint also described how Walters began therapy in November 2020 and was diagnosed the following month with complex posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder.”
The ruling sends the case back to the trial court, where the parties will engage in more litigation, conduct discovery and move toward an eventual trial.
If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence and need support and/or resources, reach out to RAINN and the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800-656-HOPE) for free, confidential help 24/7.
Luke Combs apologized Wednesday after he accidentally sued one of his fans in federal court and won a $250,000 judgment against her, saying she had been caught up in a lawsuit aimed at “illegal businesses” and that she was “never supposed to be involved.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The apology came a day after news broke that lawyers representing the country star had sued a woman named Nicol Harness for selling Combs-themed mugs on Amazon. Harness, who suffers from congestive heart failure, sold only 18 tumblers for a total of $380 but was ordered to pay a whopping $250,000 in damages for infringing Combs’ intellectual property — all before she ever realized she had been sued.
In an Instagram post on Wednesday, Combs said he had just learned about the situation and that it “makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.” He said he had already contacted Harness directly and apologized for the incident.
“I spent the last two hours trying to make this right and figure out what’s going on, because I was completely and utterly unaware of this,” Combs said in the video. “We do have a company that goes after folks only, supposedly large corporations operating internationally that make millions and millions of dollars making counterfeit tee shirts, things of that nature, running illegal businesses. Apparently, this woman, Nicol, has somehow gotten wrapped into that.”
The lawsuit against Harness, filed in June in Illinois federal court, accused more than 200 online entities of selling unauthorized Combs merchandise on the internet. It included screenshots of unauthorized t-shirts sold on Amazon that directly copied real apparel the country star sold on his own site.
“This action has been filed … to combat online counterfeiters who trade upon the reputation and goodwill of the American artist Luke Combs,” his lawyers wrote. “The aggregated effect of the mass counterfeiting that is taking place has overwhelmed the plaintiff and his ability to police his rights against the hundreds of anonymous defendants which are selling illegal counterfeits at prices.”
The case highlights a common legal tactic used by big brands like Nike and Ray-Ban to fight fake products on the internet. Filed against huge lists of URLs, such actions enable brands to shut down pirate sellers en masse, win court orders to freeze their assets, and continue to kill new listings if they pop up. They usually result in large “default judgments” against many defendants who never even saw the lawsuit, ordering them to pay large sums in damages.
Though they’re more often employed by retail brands, artists and bands have increasingly turned to such lawsuits to combat counterfeit merch. Nirvana sued nearly 200 sites for selling fake gear in early 2022; a few months later, the late rapper XXXTentacion’s company filed a similar case; in January, Harry Styles filed one.
Such lawsuits are effective at combating a difficult problem, but they’re also increasingly controversial. In a study released last month, professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University’s School of Law called the mass-defendant counterfeiting cases “abusive,” saying they allow rightsholders to bypass “basic procedural safeguards” like making sure each defendant is properly served with notice of the lawsuit.
Harness says that’s what happened to her. As reported by Tampa’s local NBC outlet WFLA, she says she had no idea she had been sued until she returned from a hospital visit and saw her Amazon account had been frozen. Harness says she later found an email from Combs’ lawyers, sent to an address she rarely uses and stuck in her spam folder, notifying her of the lawsuit. By the time she was fully up to speed, she says the case had been closed and a judge had granted a default judgment ordering her to pay Combs $250,000.
Though the lawsuit was filed directly in his name, Combs’ Instagram post on Wednesday suggests that it was handled entirely by outside attorneys or other entities empowered to enforce his rights. The attorney who filed the case, Keith A. Vogt, did not immediately return a request for comment.
Combs’ manager Chris Kappy declined to comment on how the case came to be filed, but confirmed that Combs had absolved Harness of any legal debt. And in his Instagram post on Wednesday, Combs said he was committed to making things right.
Since a total of $5,500 was still frozen in her Amazon account, he said he was “going to double that, send her $11,000 today, just so she doesn’t have anything to worry about.” Combs also said that he was going to make his own tumblers to sell in his official online merchandise store and that money from sales of those tumblers will also go to Harness to help with her medical bills.
“This is not something I would ever do,” Combs said. “This is not the kind of person I am, greedy in any way, shape or form. Money is the last thing on my mind, I promise you guys that. I invited Nicol and her family out to a show this year so I can give her a hug and say sorry in person.”
A Taylor Swift fan who filed a class action against Ticketmaster parent Live Nation in the wake of last year’s disastrous presale of tickets to the Eras Tour has agreed to drop her case against the concert giant, months after attorneys on the case said they were engaged in settlement talks.
Swift fan Michelle Sterioff filed her case in December 2022 just weeks after the botched Eras rollout, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried – and many failed – to buy tickets. At the time, her lawyers blasted Live Nation as a “monopoly” that had “knowingly misled millions of fans.”
But a year later, Sterioff voluntarily asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss her case. It’s unclear if a settlement was reached, but the two sides reported in August that they were engaged in “ongoing settlement discussions.” Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Sterioff’s proposed class action was just one piece of the legal fallout for Live Nation following the error-plagued pre-sale for Eras, which went on the earn hundreds of millions of dollars and dominate headlines as 2023’s biggest concert tour.
After the Nov. 22, 2022 incident, Live Nation quickly apologized to fans and pinned the blame on a “staggering number of bot attacks” and “unprecedented traffic.” But lawmakers in Washington and state attorneys general around the country quickly called for investigations. That included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, who suggest that regulators consider “breaking up the company” – a reference to Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster.
Days after the incident, the New York Times reported that DOJ had already been investigating Live Nation for months over potential antitrust violations, reaching out to venues across the country to ask about the company’s conduct. Last month, Reuters reported that the probe was ongoing, with federal investigators focusing on whether Live Nation imposed anticompetitive agreements on venues. A Senate subcommittee investigation is also underway, sending out subpoenas last month demanding info about the company’s “failure to combat artificially inflated demand fueled by bots in multiple, high-profile incidents.”
Taylor Swift performs onstage for night three of Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour at Nissan Stadium on May 07, 2023 in Nashville.
John Shearer/TAS23/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management
Sterioff’s case was one of two major class actions filed against Live Nation over the Eras ticket rollout. In her complaint, she accused the company of violating consumer protection and antitrust laws, calling Ticketmaster a “monopoly that is only interested in taking every dollar it can from a captive public.”
“Because Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements with virtually all venues capable of accommodating large concerts, Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to sell their tickets through Ticketmaster, and their fans have no choice but to purchase tickets through Ticketmaster’s primary ticketing platform,” her lawyers wrote.
Sterioff’s lawsuit claimed that Live Nation has exploited that dominance to charge “ever more supracompetitive ticketing fees for both primary and secondary ticketing services,” including for “virtually all venues hosting ‘The Eras’ Tour.”
But the lawsuit has largely been paused for months. In August, both sides agreed that it would be better to wait to litigate the case after a federal appeals court rules on a separate antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation, which will decide whether the company can force ticketbuyers to resolve such legal claims in private arbitration rather than open court.
The other class action over the Eras debacle, filed by an outspoken fan named Julie Barfuss and more than two dozen other spurned Swifities, remains pending in California federal court. In her complaint, Barfuss went even further than Sterioff, claiming Live Nation had tacitly allowed the kind of mass-scalping that caused so many problems during the pre-sale.
“Ticketmaster has stated that it has taken steps to address this issue, but in reality, has taken steps to make additional profit from the scalped tickets,” Barfuss’ lawyer wrote. “Instead of competition, Ticketmaster has conspired with stadiums to force fans to buy more expensive tickets that Ticketmaster gets additional fees from every time the tickets are resold.”
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: Lawyers for Michael Jackson’s estate send a legal threat letter over the recent release of a rare Jackson 5 recording; Sean “Diddy” Combs and a former Recording Academy boss are both hit with sexual assault lawsuits as music’s #MeToo wave continues; Google loses an epic antitrust battle over smartphone apps; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: MJ’s Estate Threatens Lawsuit Over Rare Recording
“We write to put you on notice regarding several matters that expose you to liability to the Jackson Estate.”
That’s never a great thing to read, but it’s particularly problematic if you’ve just announced to the world that you’re about to digitally release a rare Jackson 5 song that holds the distinction as “Michael Jackson’s first ever studio recording.”
A day after a Swedish company called anotherblock did precisely that, attorneys for Michael’s estate sent a letter warning that they weren’t happy about the plan. They said the release “violates” the estate’s trademark and likeness rights, and that the company was potentially “misleading the public” by claiming the song was the first-ever Jackson recording.
“We have serious doubts that Michael would have ever wanted these recordings released and commercialized,” the estate’s attorneys wrote. “What you are doing is the opposite of honoring Michael Jackson.”
Go read the entire story here, including access to the full letter sent by the estate.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY SUED YET AGAIN – Another woman — the fourth in three weeks — filed a lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations of sexual assault. The unnamed Jane Doe accuser claims she was “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” by Combs, former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre and another man in 2003 when she was 17 years old. Combs, who had mostly stayed quiet since allegations started flying, responded that “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” and that he “did not do any of the awful things being alleged.”
MORE MUSIC #METOO CLAIMS – Former Recording Academy CEO Mike Greene and the academy itself were hit with a lawsuit alleging Greene sexually assaulted an Academy employee named Terri McIntyre in the 1990s. The woman claims that during her tenure at the Academy from 1994 to 1996, she was “forced to endure pervasive, incessant and routine sexual harassment and/or sexual assault” from Greene and that the Academy enabled it by failing to take action.
GOOGLE LOSES MONOPOLY CASE – A jury found that Google violated federal antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly over the Android app market, siding with Epic Games, the maker of the hit video game Fortnite. The case had been closely watched by digital music services like Spotify because Epic’s lawsuit challenges the fees that Google and Apple require apps to pay for in-app transactions and subscriptions.
LIL DURK DOUBLE DIP? – The Chicago rapper was sued by a fintech firm called Exceed Talent Capital, which claims that Durk agreed to grant the company the recording royalties from his song “Bedtime” even though he had already signed an exclusive deal with Sony’s Alamo Records — an alleged double-dip that Exceed called a “manifest fraud.”
TYGA’S INFRINGING SNEAKERS – A federal appeals court sided with Vans and ruled that Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers — a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool — likely violate the shoe company’s trademarks. The company that partnered with the rapper to create the sneaker (MSCHF) argued that it had been designed to criticize “sneakerhead” consumerist culture and was thus protected by the First Amendment. But the court said that the shoe was entitled to “no special First Amendment protections” and that the sneaker was likely to confuse consumers into thinking it was an authentic Vans partnership.
TWITTER SUED OVER COPYRIGHTS – SUISA, the music royalties collecting society in Switzerland, sued X Corp. (formerly Twitter) in German court over allegations that the social media site has allowed infringing content to be posted to the platform. The lawsuit mirrors a similar case filed against Twitter in U.S. court in June by dozens of music publishers who are seeking as much as $255 million in damages.
TICKETING REFORM ADVANCES – Legislation that aims to make buying concert tickets an easier, more straightforward process was voted forward by a U.S. House of Representatives committee, clearing the way for a full House vote. Among other features, the proposed STOP Act would require sellers to post final “all-in” prices that include fees, as well as ensure buyers can get refunds after cancellations. Days after the vote, a similar bill, The Fans First Act, was introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers.
CRIP MAC FACES GUN CHARGE – YouTuber and rapper Trevor Hurd, who goes by the name Crip Mac, was arrested in Los Angeles on federal gun charges. The arrest by U.S. Marshals came moments after a California judge agreed to drop state gun charges against Mac over the same alleged wrongdoing — a not-uncommon step after state prosecutors coordinate with the U.S. Attorneys Office.
A federal court jury has decided that Google’s Android app store has been protected by anticompetitive barriers that have damaged smartphone consumers and software developers, dealing a blow to a major pillar of a technology empire.
The unanimous verdict reached Monday came after just three hours of deliberation following a four-week trial revolving around a lucrative payment system within Google’s Play Store. The store is the main place where hundreds of millions of people around the world download and install apps that work on smartphones powered by Google’s Android software.
Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, filed a lawsuit against Google three years ago, alleging that the internet search giant has been abusing its power to shield its Play Store from competition in order to protect a gold mine that makes billions of dollars annually. Just as Apple does for its iPhone app store, Google collects a commission ranging from 15% to 30% on digital transactions completed within apps.
Apple prevailed in a similar case that Epic brought against the iPhone app store. But that 2021 trial was decided by a federal judge in a ruling that is under appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nine-person jury in the Play Store case apparently saw things through a different lens, even though Google technically allows Android apps to be downloaded from different stores — an option that Apple prohibits on the iPhone.
Just before the Play Store trial started, Google sought to avoid having a jury determine the outcome, only to have its request rejected by U.S. District Judge James Donato. Now it will be up to Donato to determine what steps Google will have to take to unwind its illegal behavior in the Play Store. The judge indicated he will hold hearings on the issue during the second week of January.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney broke into a wide grin after the verdict was read and slapped his lawyers on the back and also shook the hand of a Google attorney, whom he thanked for his professional attitude during the proceedings.
“Victory over Google!” Sweeney wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. In a company post, Epic hailed the verdict as “a win for all app developers and consumers around the world.”
Google plans to appeal the verdict, according to a statement from Wilson White, the company’s vice president of government affairs and public policy.
“Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform,” White said.
Depending on how the judge enforces the jury’s verdict, Google could lose billions of dollars in annual profit generated from its Play Store commissions. The company’s main source of revenue — digital advertising tied mostly to its search engine, Gmail and other services — won’t be directly affected by the trial’s outcome.
The jury reached its decision after listening to two hours of closing arguments from the lawyers on the opposing sides of the case.
Epic lawyer Gary Bornstein depicted Google as a ruthless bully that deploys a “bribe and block” strategy to discourage competition against its Play Store for Android apps. Google lawyer Jonathan Kravis attacked Epic as a self-interested game maker trying to use the courts to save itself money while undermining an ecosystem that has spawned billions of Android smartphones to compete against Apple and its iPhone.
Much of the lawyers’ dueling arguments touched upon the testimony from a litany of witnesses who came to court during the trial.
The key witnesses included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who sometimes seemed like a professor explaining complex topics while standing behind a lectern because of a health issue, and Sweeney, who painted himself as a video game lover on a mission to take down a greedy tech titan.
In his closing argument for Epic, Bornstein railed against Google for exploiting its power over the Android software in a way that “has led to higher prices for developers and consumers, as well as less innovation and quality.”
Google has staunchly defended the commissions as a way to help recoup the more than $40 billion that it has poured into building into the Android software that it has been giving away since 2007 to manufacturers to compete against the iPhone.
“Android phones cannot compete against the iPhone without a great app store on them,” Kravis asserted in his closing argument. “The competition between the app stores is tied to the competition between the phones.”
But Bornstein ridiculed the notion of Google and Android competing against Apple and its incompatible iPhone software system. “Apple is not the ‘get out of jail for free’ card that Google wants it to be,” Bornstein told the jury.
Google also pointed to rival Android app stores such as the one that Samsung installs on its popular smartphones as evidence of a free market. Combined with the rival app stores pre-installed on devices made by other companies, more than 60% of Android phones offer alternative outlets for Android apps.
Epic, though, presented evidence asserting the notion that Google welcomes competition as a pretense, citing the hundreds of billions of dollars it has doled out to companies, such as game maker Activision Blizzard, to discourage them from opening rival app stores. Besides making these payments, Bornstein also urged the jury to consider the Google “scare screens” that pop up, warning consumers of potential security threats when they try to download Android apps from some of the alternatives to the Play Store.
“These are classic anticompetitive strategies used by dominant firms to protect their monopolies,” Bornstein said.
Google’s empire could be further undermined by another major antitrust trial in Washington that will be decided by a federal judge after hearing final arguments in May. That trial has cast a spotlight on Google’s cozy relationship with Apple in online search, the technology that turned Google into a household word a few years after two former Stanford University graduate students started the company in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998.
The Michael Jackson estate isn’t happy about a recently-announced digital sale of an early Jackson 5 recording, warning that it “violates the Jackson Estate’s rights” and could lead to a lawsuit.
A Swedish company called anotherblock announced Wednesday (Dec. 6) that it would digitally release a 1967 version of the song “Big Boy,” claiming it represented the first time Jackson’s voice had been put on tape. But in a letter sent Thursday, the estate’s attorney, Jonathan Steinsapir, pointedly advised the company about several problems that might “expose you to liability to the Jackson Estate.”
Among other things, the letter (which was obtained by Billboard) warned that the estate owns all rights to Jackson’s name, image and likeness rights, along with his trademarks. “Given this,” Steinsapir wrote, “any use of Michael’s name, image, and likeness in marketing, advertising or in the product itself violates the Jackson Estate’s rights.”
At issue in the budding dispute is a 1967 version of the Jackson 5 song “Big Boy,” a subsequent version of which was commercially released in 1968. The earlier version is called the “One-derful Version” because it was recorded at Chicago’s One-derful Studios. According to Rolling Stone, that version of the song first surfaced in 2009 and was released in 2014 on vinyl.
On Wednesday, anotherblock said it would release the track for the first time in digital format, doing so in partnership with Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson, and with a company called Recordpool, which purportedly controls the intellectual property rights to the recording. The sale, which included $25 and $100 packages with various other goodies, is meant to continue through the weekend via the anotherblock site.
But in its letter on Thursday, the estate warned that whatever deals anotherblock had struck to facilitate the “Big Boy” sale could be invalid if they covered rights that were controlled solely by Michael’s estate, like his trademark rights. And the estate’s lawyers strongly questioned the claim that the “One-derful Version” was Jackson’s first studio recording.
“We have no information to confirm that the unreleased recordings you are making available are in fact the first time Michael Jackson’s ‘voice was put on tape’ or even that it was the first time he recorded in a studio at all,” the estate’s attorney wrote. “Indeed, we have good reason to believe that this is not the first time Michael Jackson ever recorded in a studio. Because of that, you are likely misleading the public.”
A 2009 article by the Chicago Reader called the “One-derful” track “the earliest known studio recording of Michael Jackson and his brothers.” A 2014 article from Rolling Stone likewise called the recording the “earliest commercially available Jackson 5 recording.”
In Thursday’s letter, the estate also sharply criticized the decision to publish previously unreleased songs, telling anotherblock that Jackson was “was the consummate perfectionist” and that he had been “very careful about what recordings he released to the public.”
“Because of this, we have serious doubts that Michael would have ever wanted these recordings released and commercialized,” the estate’s attorneys wrote. “As the persons designated by Michael to protect his legacy after his untimely passing, the Estate’s Co-Executors are duty-bound to point this out. What you are doing is the opposite of honoring Michael Jackson.”
As if the message wasn’t clear enough, at the bottom of the letter the estate warned that it reserved “all of the Jackson Estate’s rights and remedies,” including the right to seek monetary damages and an injunction blocking further sales.
A spokeswoman for anotherblock declined to comment.