Legal News
Page: 8
This story was published as part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’
Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here.
Let’s get the news out of the way: on Monday (Nov. 24) Drake initiated legal action against Universal Music Group — the parent company of his record label — and Spotify over allegations that the two companies conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.” This, he says, was done through a variety of allegedly illegal promotional methods, like UMG — which also is the parent company to Kendrick’s label — accepting a royalty reduction in exchange for boosting streams; payola via independent radio promotions; and paid but undisclosed influencer campaigns. (For their part, Universal called these claims “offensive and untrue.”)
Longtime readers of Machine Learnings know that most of the topics presented in Drake’s case are ones we’ve covered extensively in this newsletter. I don’t take the issues of streaming fraud and shady digital marketing tactics lightly, and if these allegations are true, it would be a bombshell that one of the world’s biggest artists called out the world’s largest music company for partaking in it. (And trust me, I’d be all over reporting that!) But while Drake’s allegations could still hold some merit, this particular court document seems to be backed up with questionable evidence and — it seems — some level of misunderstanding about the way music promotion works today.
So let’s break it down. Here are a few key quotes from Monday’s court document, with commentary.
“In his memo to staff reflecting on the highlights of 2021, the CEO of UMG, Lucian Grainge, remarked on it being ‘harder than ever for artists to break through the noise: sixty thousand songs are added to Spotify every day.’”
Trending on Billboard
Maybe I’m splitting hairs by pointing this out, but I find this to be a strange way to begin laying out these allegations. Why are they citing highlights from 2021 when we get updates every year about how many songs are added to Spotify on a daily basis? It would have been far more effective to start by including the 2023 stat: 120,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify each day, according to Luminate. Or, if they want to keep the quote from Grainge in, why not tack that current number on to the end?
Throughout this document, it seems like Drake’s team is missing key, up-to-date information on the ways songs are released and marketed today. This is surprising, given Drake is one of the most successful artists in the world and one who often makes savvy marketing and business decisions. One of those marketing tactics that immediately comes to mind is when Drake graced the cover of a ton of Spotify playlists during the release of his album Scorpion in 2018 to raise awareness, and streams, for the project. It was so over the top that Billboard reported at the time that some fans were calling for Spotify to provide refunds because they were seeing too much Drake.
“On information and belief, UMG charged Spotify licensing rates 30 percent lower than its usual licensing rates for “Not Like Us” in exchange for Spotify affirmatively recommending the Song to users who are searching for other unrelated songs and artists. Neither UMG nor Spotify disclosed that Spotify had received compensation of any kind in exchange for recommending the Song.”
Rather than some nefarious back room deal, this sounds like Drake’s lawyers are referring to Spotify’s Discovery Mode feature, which is used by a wide array of labels and artists and is practically never disclosed. According to an article from Spotify’s support team, artists who want a song to receive an additional algorithmic boost on the platform can opt in to Discovery Mode which “doesn’t require an upfront budget” and instead takes a “30% commission… to recording royalties generated from all streams of selected songs in Discovery Mode contexts.”
When Spotify debuted this feature in November 2020, it immediately drew controversy. In June 2021, Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Hank Johnson Jr. (D-GA) sent a letter to Spotify’s CEO/founder Daniel Ek voicing worries that the feature “may set in motion a ‘race to the bottom’ in which artists and labels feel compelled to accept lower royalties as a necessary way to break through an extremely crowded and competitive music environment.”
Again, in March 2022, Reps. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Judy Chu (D-CA) and Tony Cardenas (D-CA) — co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Multicultural Media — expressed concerns that Discovery Mode “lack[ed] transparency” for both artists and consumers. The representatives then asked the company to publish “on a monthly basis the name of every track enrolled in the program” and the agreed-upon discounted royalty rate for each, calling Discovery Mode “a serious risk for musicians.”
That said, it’s not clear if “Not Like Us” was part of Spotify’s Discovery Mode program, and historically, Universal Music Group has not been known to use the feature for any of its frontline releases — including any Kendrick Lamar or Drake songs.
“UMG, directly or through Interscope, also conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of ‘Not Like Us’ and deceive consumers into believing the Song was more popular than it was in reality… One individual unknown to Petitioner revealed publicly on a popular podcast that Mr. Kendrick Lamar Duckworth’s ‘label’ (i.e., Interscope) paid him via third parties to use ‘bots’ to achieve 30,000,000 streams on Spotify in the first days of the release of ‘Not Like Us’”
If this is true, this is streaming fraud and would be a serious offense. Just a few months ago, a man named Michael Anthony Smith was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy for allegedly using bots to boost the streams of his catalog and to help him siphon $10 million out of the royalty pool.
But the evidence here is sketchy. Drake’s lawyers admit that the “individual” who was allegedly solicited to artificially drive up Kendrick’s streams is “unknown to [Drake]” but that this anonymous person went on DJ Akademiks’ podcast to talk about this alleged scheme. DJ Akademiks is a podcaster who is known to be close with Drake, and he has played a significant role in backing up Drake during the beef earlier this year. Even if this ended up being true, which seems like a stretch, it feels quite biased.
“While historically payola has been thought of in terms of paying radio stations to play songs, in February 2020, the Federal Trade Commission released guidance stating that ‘by paying an influencer to pretend that their endorsement or review is untainted by a financial relationship, this is illegal payola.’ On information and belief, UMG employed a similar scheme by paying social media influencers to promote and endorse the Song and Video. For example, Petitioner understands that UMG paid the popular NFR Podcast — which has nearly 300,000 subscribers on YouTube and over 330,000 followers on X — to promote ‘Not Like Us’”
Drake’s team is citing a quote from February 2020 by the FTC that has been removed from the agency’s website. I do not know if that means it is no longer their current rule, or if there was another reason.
What I do know is that just a few months ago, I wrote a story on the topic of influencers receiving undisclosed payments to play songs in the background of TikTok videos. I went into the reporting believing, as Drake’s team seems to, that this was definitely against FTC guidelines, but the FTC told me that wasn’t necessarily the case.
“While we can’t comment on any particular example, that practice seems somewhat analogous to a product placement,” the FTC told me. “When there are songs playing in the backgrounds of videos, there are no objective claims made about the songs. The video creator may be communicating implicitly that they like the song, but viewers can judge the song themselves when they listen to it playing in the video. For these reasons, it may not be necessary for a video to disclose that the content creator was compensated for using a particular song in the background in the video.”
Some of the examples from NFR that Drake cites here are not exactly the same type of pay-to-play content I researched for my story, but I could see these examples being acceptable by the FTC based on what they told me. One example of UMG’s alleged influencer payola cited by Drake’s lawyers was a tweet by NFR that says that Kendrick Lamar’s new music video was released. Another was NFR saying “Kids rapping Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ word for word at a birthday party.” Another: “Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ becomes the FASTEST rap song to reach 300M Spotify streams.”
All three of these examples are objective statements about one of the biggest artists in the world. Referring back to the statement I got from the FTC, “There are no objective claims made about the songs…viewers can judge the songs themselves.” (I say all this while also acknowledging that some of the other examples listed might be in more of a gray area with the FTC).
The practice of paying influencers to post about new songs is nothing new, and one major label marketer told me he estimated “75% of popular songs on TikTok started with a creator marketing campaign.” According to digital marketing experts, influencer campaigns have been the go-to marketing strategy at every major label since TikTok took off in 2020. With that in mind, it is hard for me to imagine that Drake’s team has never run a similar campaign for any of his own viral hits, which would undermine his entire argument.
“Streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game. Every time a song ‘breaks through,’ it means another artist does not. UMG’s choice to saturate the music market with ‘Not Like Us’ comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake. As Drake is Petitioner’s sole owner, and Petitioner owns the copyright to Drake’s entire catalogue, Petitioner suffered economic harm as a result of UMG’s scheme.”
I find this to be a strange claim — that if Kendrick’s song streams well it directly takes away from Drake or other artists. It feels like a stretch to blame Kendrick for other artists not succeeding with their songs at the same time. I imagine Drake faced more “economic harm” from the reputational damage this song did to him (by calling him a “pedophile”) than it did by being a “zero-sum” streaming game. Plus, with UMG the parent company distributing both artists — and thus making money from their success — it makes no business sense for them to be deliberately harming his career and prospects.
This zero-sum claim seems to be what he’s getting at in his second legal filing, released Tuesday (Nov. 26). In it, he claims UMG should have stopped Kendrick from releasing a song with “false” claims that defamed his character.
“UMG … could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write in the court document. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
By saying this, Drake is essentially advocating for labels to censor their artists, which is a very slippery slope — I’d wager most people would find it troublesome if a billion-dollar corporation started preemptively censoring art. Not to mention, Drake has levied plenty of his own unsubstantiated claims against Kendrick this year, most notably on also-UMG-released diss track “Family Matters.”
The hip-hop industry has fought for years to remind the judicial system in the U.S. that not everything a rapper says in a song is a cold hard fact, and it should not be used as evidence against a rapper in a criminal sense. As top music attorney Dina Lapolt once put it to Variety, “[these] attempts to put all rap lyrics into the categories of historical fact and fiction [are] failing to understand that hip-hop, like most art, is more complex than that… lyrics are not to be taken literally.”
Drake has launched a second bombshell legal action against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” accusing the music giant of defamation and claiming it could have halted the release of a song “falsely accusing him of being a sex offender.”
A day after filing an action in New York accusing UMG of illegally boosting Lamar’s track with payments to Spotify, Drake’s company leveled similar claims in Texas court regarding radio giant iHeartRadio. The new filing, filed late Monday and made public on Tuesday, claims UMG “funneled payments” to iHeart as part of a “pay-to-play scheme” to promote the song on radio.
But the filing also offers key new details about Drake’s grievances toward UMG, the label where he has spent his entire career. In it, he says UMG knew that Kendrick’s song “falsely” accused him of being a “certified pedophile” and “predator” but chose to release it anyway.
Trending on Billboard
“UMG … could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
Like the New York filing on Monday, the new petition isn’t quite a lawsuit. Instead, it’s so-called pre-action filing aimed taking depositions from key figures at UMG and iHeart in order to obtain more information that might support Drake’s accusations in a future lawsuit.
In seeking that information, Drake’s lawyers say they already have enough evidence to pursue a “claim for defamation” against UMG, but that they might also tack on claims of civil fraud and racketeering based on what they discover from the depositions.
UMG and iHeartRadio did not immediately return requests for comment on the new filing. Lamar is not named as a respondent in the filing and is not legally accused of any wrongdoing.
Universal Music Group responded to yesterday’s filing with a statement provided to Billboard. “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” the company said. “We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
Like Monday’s bombshell petition, the new filing in Texas is another remarkable escalation in the high-profile beef between the two stars, which saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks over a period of months earlier this year. Such beefs happen frequently in the world of hip-hop, but few thought either side would file legal actions over the insults.
It also represents a deepening of the rift between Drake and UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic. Lamar, too, has spent his entire career associated with UMG and is currently signed to a licensing deal with Interscope.
In Tuesday’s new petition, Drake essentially accused the music giant of using illegal means to unfairly prioritize one of its artists over the other.
“Before it approved the release of the song, UMG knew that the song itself, as well as its accompanying album art and music video, attacked the character of another one of UMG’s most prominent artists, Drake, by falsely accusing him of being a sex offender, engaging in pedophilic acts, harboring sex offenders and committing other criminal sexual acts,” his lawyers write.
Guitar manufacturer Gibson has issued a cease-and-desist against the branding agency behind a line of guitars endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump, alleging the design infringes the company’s trademarks, Billboard has confirmed. The cease-and-desist against 16 Creative alleges the guitar line infringes on its trademark for the “iconic Les Paul body shape,” a Gibson spokesperson tells […]
Universal Music Group (UMG) has responded to allegations by UMG artist Drake that it conspired with Spotify to artificially boost the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” in a blockbuster legal filing on Monday (Nov. 25). “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” to […]
Drake has initiated legal action against Universal Music Group and Spotify over allegations that the two companies conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.”
In a filing Monday (Nov. 25) in Manhattan court, Drake’s Frozen Moments LLC accused UMG of launching an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song — a track that savagely attacked Drake amid an ongoing feud between the two stars.
“UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices,” attorneys for Drake’s company write. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”
Trending on Billboard
Drake’s attorneys accuse UMG of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal “RICO” statute often used in criminal cases against organized crime. They also allege deceptive business practices and false advertising under New York state law.
The court filings are a remarkable twist in the high-profile beef between the two stars, which saw Drake and Kendrick exchange stinging diss tracks over a period of months earlier this year. That such a dispute would spill into business litigation seemed almost unthinkable in the world of hip-hop.
It also represents a stunning rift between Drake and UMG, where the star has spent his entire career, first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, and then signing directly to Republic.
Lamar, meanwhile, has also spent his entire career associated with UMG, first through the TDE imprint, which was distributed by Interscope, and more recently through his own company pgLang, which he licenses through Interscope.
In technical terms, Monday’s filing is not yet a full lawsuit, but a so-called “pre-action” petition — a procedure under New York law that aims to secure information before filing a lawsuit. Spotify declined to comment. UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
This is a developing story, and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Nearly five years after the major labels won a $1 billion music piracy verdict against Cox Communications, the U.S. Supreme Court is signaling that it might jump into the long-running copyright case.
In an order issued Monday (Nov. 25), the justices asked the Justice Department to weigh in on whether the high court should tackle the huge penalty, which Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment (SME) and Warner Music Group (WMG) won back in 2019 over allegations of widespread piracy by Cox’s users.
After an appeals court ordered the award recalculated earlier this year, both sides have asked the Supreme Court to take the case. The labels want the justices to reinstate the original verdict; Cox wants the high court to overturn it entirely.
Trending on Billboard
Such petitions are always a long shot, as the Supreme Court takes less than 2% of the more than 7,000 cases it receives each year. But Monday’s order — a “call for the view of the Solicitor General,” or CVSG, in SCOTUS parlance — is a relatively rare step that indicates that the justices think the issues in the case might be significant enough for the court to tackle.
UMG, SME and WMG all sued Cox in 2018, seeking to hold the internet giant itself liable for alleged wrongdoing committed by its users. The labels said Cox had ignored hundreds of thousands of infringement notices and had never permanently terminated a single subscriber accused of stealing music.
ISPs like Cox are often shielded from lawsuits over illegal downloading by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. But a judge ruled that Cox had forfeited that protection by failing to terminate people who were repeatedly accused of violating copyright law. Stripped of that immunity, jurors held Cox liable in December 2019 for the infringement of 10,017 separate songs and awarded the labels more than $99,000 for each song, adding up to $1 billion.
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court overturned that award, ruling that aspects of the verdict weren’t supported by the law. But the appeals court also upheld other parts, and Cox is still facing the potential of a very large penalty when damages are recalculated.
In taking the case to the Supreme Court, Cox has urged the justices to undo the entire verdict. The company has issued dire warnings, arguing that the “draconian” approach applied in the case “threatens mass disruption” by potentially forcing ISPs to terminate internet service to thousands of Americans.
“The stakes are immense,” Cox’s attorneys wrote. “This court should grant certiorari to prevent these cases from creating confusion, disruption, and chaos on the internet. Innovation, privacy, and competition depend on it.”
Firing back, the labels have called those arguments “disingenuous” and instead urged the court to take up their own separate petition seeking to reinstate the entire verdict.
“This court should take Cox’s concerns about terminating internet access with a healthy serving of salt,” attorneys for UMG, SME and WMG wrote. “During the time period at issue here, Cox terminated over 600,000 subscribers for not paying their bills. When Cox’s money is on the line, Cox clearly has no problem ‘irreparably cutting’ its customers ‘off from society.’”
Universal Music Group (UMG) is firing back at a lawsuit from Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst claiming the label owes the band more than $200 million, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court.
The blockbuster lawsuit, filed last month in Los Angeles federal court, claimed that Durst had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades — and that hundreds of other artists may have been treated similarly under “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies.
But in UMG’s first response on Friday, attorneys for the label said the lawsuit must be dismissed immediately because it is “based on a fallacy.”
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs’ entire narrative that UMG tried to conceal royalties is a fiction,” writes Rollin A. Ransom, an attorney with the law firm Sidley Austin who represents UMG in the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs’ complaint fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
The key problem with Durst’s claims? According to UMG’s attorneys, it’s that documents included in his own lawsuit “eviscerate” his allegations. They specifically cite emails in which a UMG exec appears to have reached out to get royalties flowing, but was rebuffed by the band’s own business manager.
“Over a year before plaintiffs’ ‘discovery’ of allegedly ‘concealed’ royalties, UMG affirmatively and unilaterally reached out to Limp Bizkit’s representative so that it could begin making royalty payments to the band, and was instead informed by him that all members of Limp Bizkit but one (including plaintiff Durst) had assigned their royalty shares to others, and were therefore not entitled to any royalty payments from UMG,” the company wrote in Friday’s filing.
Durst’s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday. They will have a chance to file a formal response in court opposing UMG’s motion to end the case.
Durst and Limp Bizkit sued UMG in October, claiming the band had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite its huge success over the years: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.”
That claim was something of a stunner. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry’s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?
According to Durst, the answer was an “appalling and unsettling” scheme to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.” He claimed the company essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing it to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount the group had been paid in upfront advances.
But in Friday’s response, UMG said such claims of “concealment” were undercut by those emails. UMG says the message show a senior royalties director reaching out on his own initiative to Paul Ta, the band’s business manager, to “start making royalty payments,” but being rebuffed.
“Mr. Ta rejected that proposition, responding that all the Limp Bizkit members but one (including Plaintiff Durst) ‘have … sold/assigned their share [of the royalties] to various companies,’ such that no royalty payments were owing to any of those individuals (including Plaintiff Durst),” UMG wrote in Friday’s motion.
UMG says Ta later emailed back that his statements had been incorrect, at which point the label paid out roughly $3.4 million to the band and its companies – a fact that contradicts the lawsuit’s claims of “never received any royalties.”
“Plaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments from UMG,” the label wrote Friday. “Plaintiffs nevertheless brought this suit alleging breach of contract and fraud on their ‘suspicion’ that they are owed more royalties, and seeking rescission of the parties’ agreements.”
Three of Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmates have now formally dropped out of a lawsuit seeking royalties from the rapper’s breakout album Country Grammar – two months after they said they hadn’t wanted to sue him in the first place.
The lawsuit, which claims the Lunatics contributed to the album but that Nelly cut them out of the credits, was first filed in September by Ali (Ali Jones), Murphy Lee (Tohri Harper), Kyjuan (Robert Kyjuan) and City Spud (Lavell Webb). But Lee, Kyjuan and Spud quickly rebelled — saying they never consented to the lawsuit and demanded that they be removed from the case immediately.
In an updated version filed Friday, the lawyers behind the lawsuit finally did so – meaning the case is now a dispute between Ali and Nelly alone. In a statement to Billboard, Ali’s attorney who filed the case, Precious Felder Gates, said her client would “continue to pursue the unpaid royalties he is entitled to.”
Trending on Billboard
“Our client, Mr. Jones, is deeply committed to protecting his creative contributions and ensuring rightful compensation for his work,” Felder Gates said. “While others may have chosen to withdraw, his dedication to his artistic legacy and his rights as a creator remains unwavering.”
A group of high school friends from St. Louis, the St. Lunatics rose to prominence in the late 1990s with “Gimme What U Got”, and their debut album Free City — released a year after Country Grammar — was a hit of its own, reaching No. 3 on the Billboard 200.
In their Sept. 18 complaint, the bandmates claimed that Nelly had repeatedly “manipulated” them into falsely thinking they’d be paid for their work on the 2000 album, which spent five weeks atop the Billboard 200. But they said he never made good on the promises.
“Every time plaintiffs confronted defendant Haynes [he] would assure them as ‘friends’ he would never prevent them from receiving the financial success they were entitled to,” the lawsuit reads. “Unfortunately, plaintiffs, reasonably believing that their friend and former band member would never steal credit for writing the original compositions, did not initially pursue any legal remedies.”
But in early October, Lee, Kyjuan and Spud joined Nelly on stage for his performance at the American Music Awards – a seemingly strange move for jilted bandmates engaged in active litigation. Days later, it made more sense: They never wanted to sue Nelly.
As Billboard reported at the time, a lawyer representing the trio had privately sent a letter just a week after the case was filed, warning the attorneys behind the case that Lee, Kyjuan and Spud had “informed me that they did not authorize you to include them as plaintiffs.”
“They are hereby demanding you remove their names forthwith,” N. Scott Rosenblum wrote in the Sept. 24 letter, which was obtained by Billboard. “Failure to do so will cause them to explore any and all legal remedies available to them.”
In Friday’s updated lawsuit, the attorneys for Ali did just that, removing Lee, Kyjuan and Spud from the list of plaintiffs. But they also included new substantive allegations as part of their amended complaint.
In one major change, they added HarbourView Equity Partners to the list of defendants, citing Nelly’s $50 million catalog sale to the company last summer. Calling it a “substantial transaction,” Ali’s attorneys suggested that the big deal helped spark the lawsuit.
“At this juncture, it became apparent that, notwithstanding defendant Haynes’ repeated assurances … defendant would not fulfill his longstanding promises to compensate plaintiff,” Ali’s attorneys wrote.
A representative for HarbourView did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
SiriusXM violated federal consumer protection law by making it too difficult for listeners to cancel their subscriptions, a New York judge says.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by Attorney General Letitia James, who accused the satellite radio company of subjecting cancelling subscribers to a “burdensome endurance contest” that required phone conversations with a live agent and extended time spent on hold.
In a decision issued Thursday, Jude Lyle Frank said that SiriusXM’s policies didn’t rise to the level of fraud or deception, but had still violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act – a federal law requiring such services to provide a “simple” cancellation process.
In doing so, the judge ruled that SiriusXM had made it far harder to cancel a subscription than it was to sign up for one in the first place. He cited “inevitable wait times” before customers speak to agents who SiriusXM had instructed to “think of every ‘no’ simply as a request for more information.”
Trending on Billboard
“Respondents allow for a customer to sign up to a subscription without interacting with a live agent but require that a customer do just that in order to cancel,” the judge wrote. “The policies may not rise to the level of fraud … but they do fail the simple mechanism requirement of ROSCA.”
Though the court sided with New York on that question, he also dismissed four of the lawsuit’s five counts, including the attorney general’s allegations that SiriusXM’s practices violated New York state laws barring fraudulent conduct or deceptive practices.
Judge Frank said the company had “taken repeated steps” to prevent its cancellation process from crossing the line from “aggravating” into outright fraud. He cited other training materials in which the company told agents to be “fast, friendly, and efficient” and that “it’s ok to let a customer leave.”
“That Sirius, when contacted by customers requesting a cancellation, then engages in a conversation that offers some customers a different or better deal on their subscription before proceeding to cancellation is not deceptive or misleading,” the judge wrote. “It may be frustrating, but it is not deceptive.”
In a statement to Billboard on Friday, SiriusXM stressed those aspects of the decision, saying the court had “dismissed almost all of the charges” and found the company’s process to be “neither misleading nor deceptive.”
“While the court found some technical violations of a federal statute, it did not find that SiriusXM ever deceived anyone or committed any fraud,” the company wrote. “SiriusXM intends to appeal the court’s ruling as to those technical violations.”
In her own statement, the attorney general said the ruling would force to Sirius to “change its cancellation procedures in New York” and ensure the company’s customers are “no longer required to speak or chat with a live agent in order to cancel.”
“No one should have to endure a lengthy and frustrating process to cancel a subscription, and any company that forces customers to jump through unnecessary hoops to end their subscriptions is breaking the law,” James said. “My office sued SiriusXM to protect consumers, and as a result of our actions, they will have to simplify their cancellation process to stop taking advantage of New Yorkers.”
Thursday’s written decision says New York is entitled to an injunction against SiriusXM forcing the company to alter its practices to adhere to the federal statute. He also ordered an “an assessment of damages against respondent Sirius XM,” but did not say how large of a monetary penalty it might be.
Miley Cyrus has filed her first response to a lawsuit claiming her “Flowers” infringes the copyright to Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man,” arguing the case has a “fatal flaw”: That Mars and his other co-writers chose not to sue.
Filed in September, the lawsuit claims the chart-topping hit stole numerous elements from the earlier song and “would not exist” without it. But it wasn’t filed by Mars — the case was lodged by an entity called Tempo Music Investments that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers.
In her first response to the allegations on Wednesday, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff unambiguously [says] that it obtained its claimed rights in the ‘When I Was Your Man’ copyright from only one of that musical composition’s four co-authors,” write Cyrus’ attorneys. “That is a fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim.”
Repped by Peter Anderson of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, Cyrus argues that Tempo’s acquisition of a “partial interest” from songwriter Philip Lawrence gave the company only “non-exclusive rights” to the song. Under federal copyright law, her lawyers say such limited rights don’t give him “standing” to sue – a crucial requirement for any lawsuit in the U.S. legal system.
“Plaintiff brings this copyright infringement action alone — without any of that musical composition’s co-authors or other owners,” Anderson writes. “Without the consent of the other owners, a grant of rights from just one co-owner does not confer standing.”
Responding those arguments from Cyrus, Tempo Music lead counsel Alex Weingarten told Billboard on Thursday that the motion from her attorneys was “intellectually dishonest” and that the group clearly had standing to pursue the lawsuit.
“They’re seeking to make bogus technical arguments because they don’t have an actual substantive defense to the case,” said Weingarten, an attorney at the firm Willkie Farr. “We’re not an assignee; we’re the owner of the copyright. The law is clear that we have the right to enforce our interest.”
“Flowers,” which spent eight weeks atop the Hot 100, has been linked to “Your Man” since it was released in January 2023. Many fans immediately saw the Cyrus track as an “answer song,” with lyrics that clearly referenced those in the Mars song. The reason, according to internet sleuths, was that “Your Man” was a favorite of Cyrus’ ex-husband Liam Hemsworth – and her allusions were a nod to their divorce.
When “Flowers” was first released, legal experts told Billboard that Cyrus was likely not violating copyrights simply by using similar lyrics to fire back at the earlier song – a time-honored music industry tradition utilized by songs ranging from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” to countless rap diss records.
But Tempo sued in September, claiming “Flowers” had lifted numerous elements beyond the clap-back lyrics, including “melodic and harmonic material,” “pitch ending pattern,” and “bass-line structure.” The case said it was “undeniable” that Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” if not for “Your Man.”
In Wednesday’s response, attorneys for Cyrus also take aim at the substance of those allegations, arguing that the two songs show “striking differences in melody, chords, other musical elements, and words.” They say the songs might share a “few” similarities but “none of which is protected by copyright.”
“The songwriter defendants categorically deny copying, and the allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks,” Anderson writes.
But the filing mostly left those arguments for another day, instead focusing on the requirement that only “exclusive” copyright owners can file infringement lawsuits – a rule that Cyrus’ lawyers exists for a “simple” reason.
“In the case of joint works, the co-authors are joint owners of the exclusive copyright rights, each owning a non-exclusive interest in the undivided whole,” they write. “As a result, a single co-author of a copyright interest, acting alone, cannot assign or license exclusive rights because those rights also are owned by the assignor’s or licensor’s co-authors.”