Legal
Page: 45
The Beastie Boys are suing the owner of Chilis over allegations that the restaurant chain used the rap trio’s iconic 1994 song “Sabotage” in a social media advertisement without permission.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday (July 10) in Manhattan federal court, the hip-hop legends accused Brinker International of infringing their copyrights by using the song without a license — an especially serious allegation from a trio that famously doesn’t allow its music to appear in ads.
“Use of the ‘Sabotage’ sound recording, music composition and video was all without permission,” the group’s attorneys write. “The plaintiffs do not license ‘Sabotage’ or any of their other intellectual property for third-party product advertising purposes, and deceased Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch included a provision in his will prohibiting such uses.”
Trending on Billboard
The Beastie Boys says the Chilis ad in question featured three men in “70s-style” wigs, fake mustaches, and sunglasses carrying out a “robbery” of food ingredients from a Chilis. The group says it clearly “intended to evoke” the music video to “Sabotage,” a parody of 1970s “crime drama” television programs that featured Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz, Michael “Mike D” Diamond and the late Adam “MCA” Yauch in similar attire.
The band’s lawyers say using the song was bad enough, but that by recreating a video that featured “unauthorized video impersonations of Diamond, Horovitz and Yauch, Brinkers also violated federal trademark law by duping consumers with a false endorsement.
“The public was confused into believing that plaintiffs sponsored, endorsed and are associated with defendant Brinker in promoting defendant Brinker’s ‘Chili’s’ restaurants and products,” the lawsuit reads.
A spokesperson for Brinker did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Beastie Boys are infamously protective of their music when it comes to advertising, a stance underscored by the fact that Yauch’s will featured a provision prohibiting the use of his image, music and any art he created in advertising.
In 2013, the group sued a toy company called GoldieBlox after it released a viral parody of the group’s 1987 song “Girls” to promote its engineering and construction toys for girls, eventually winning a settlement in which the company apologized and donated a portion of its revenues to charities. And in 2015, the group won a $1.7 million verdict against Monster Energy over a video used by the energy drink company that used several of the group’s songs in a promotional video.
But they’ve also given certain uses of their music their blessing. In 2016, “Sabotage” appeared in a trailer for Star Trek Beyond; the next year, the group permitted the song to be used in an advertisement for the video game Destiny 2. Though those were advertisements, both of them were promoting artistic works rather than products.
Film composer Danny Elfman is facing a libel lawsuit over statements he made to the media last year defending himself from claims that he sexually abused a former friend and fellow composer.
In a case filed Wednesday (July 10) in Los Angeles court, Nomi Abadi accused Elfman of defaming her in his response to a July 2023 article in Rolling Stone, which detailed Abadi’s allegations that Elfman had repeatedly sexually harassed her, exposed himself and masturbated in front of her.
Her lawyers say that after Abadi “truthfully relayed facts” to Rolling Stone, Elfman attempted to “prop up his checkered reputation by destroying Nomi’s credibility” with “appalling lies” that branded her as a “liar, homewrecker, and an extortionist.”
Trending on Billboard
“Defamation law provides a remedy to those individuals who, because of wretched lies about their integrity, can no longer succeed on their merits in the marketplace,” her attorneys write in the lawsuit, obtained by Billboard. “It would be difficult to find an individual more meriting such a remedy than plaintiff Nomi Abadi.”
A representative for Elfman did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (July 11).
Last year’s Rolling Stone article reported that Elfman and Abadi had entered into a previously unreported $830,000 settlement in 2018 to resolve her accusations. It also reported that Abadi had recently sued Elfman for breach of contract, claiming he had missed payments required by the earlier settlement.
The article detailed Abadi’s allegations against Elfman at length. In a police report cited in the story, she claimed that over the course of nearly a year, Elfman had exposed himself and masturbated multiple times in front of her without her consent. In one particularly graphic accusation from the police report, Elfman allegedly presented her with a martini glass that Abadi claimed Elfman said was filled with semen.
Elfman — a prolific film composer who has written more than 100 film scores and composed the famous intro to The Simpsons — responded in the article with an extensive statement. Calling the allegations “vicious and wholly false,” he described Abadi as having a “childhood crush” on him and intending to “break up my marriage and replace my wife.” Elfman said that when he attempted to distance himself from her, “she made it clear that I would pay for having rejected her.”
According to Abadi’s new case, those statements to Rolling Stone were clearly defamatory — falsely portraying her as “a scorned woman seeking revenge and money.”
“In so doing, Elfman and his agents left Nomi’s career ambitions in tatters, requiring the commencement of this action,” her lawyers write. “In publicly branding Nomi as a liar, and a failed temptress who lied about him for reasons of revenge and greed, Elfman and his representatives defamed Nomi.”
Rolling Stone (which is owned by the same parent company as Billboard) is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Beyond Elfman’s statement, the new case also takes aim at two more factual assertions relayed by an unnamed “rep for Elfman” to Rolling Stone. In one, the representative denied the martini glass allegation, claiming it had actually been filled with “moisturizing cream” and was intended as a joke. In another, the rep addressed a claim that Elfman had snapped nude images of Abadi, arguing that it had been her idea and that she had “disrobed almost immediately without any encouragement.”
In her new lawsuit, Abadi said those claims were also false and defamatory: “Nomi did not initiate the nude photography,” her lawyers write in their complaint. “Elfman coerced her into it. Elfman masturbated in front of Nomi, afterwards apologizing to her and promising not to do so again.”
The lawsuit does not specify how much money Abadi is seeking in damages.
Josh Klinghoffer, a former guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, is facing a wrongful death lawsuit over allegations that he struck and killed a pedestrian near Los Angeles earlier this year due to “distracted driving.”
Filed in Los Angeles court Wednesday (July 10), the case claims that Klinghoffer was driving a black 2022 GMC Yukon with no license plates on March 18 in Alhambra, Calif., when he took a left turn and struck 47-year-old Israel Sanchez in a crosswalk. Sanchez later died of his injuries.
“Video of the incident shows that defendant Josh Adam Klinghoffer made no braking or slowing motion until after he fatally struck Israel Sanchez, indicating that defendant was likely driving while distracted,” lawyers for the victim’s daughter, Ashley, write in the complaint, obtained by Billboard. “This horrible outcome was foreseeable and demonstrates a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others.”
Trending on Billboard
Sanchez’s lawyers claim they have video evidence that shows that Klinghoffer was “using a device mere seconds before he crashed” into Sanchez.
The lawsuit claims that Klinghoffer was not arrested after the incident, left for a tour with his band, and has never reached out to Sanchez’s family: “He has shown no remorse for his behavior.”
In a statement to Billboard, Klinghoffer’s attorney Andrew Brettler said: “This was a tragic accident. After which, Josh immediately pulled over, stopped the vehicle, called 911, and waited until police and the ambulance arrived. He is fully cooperating with the traffic investigation.”
After serving as a touring guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in the late 2000s, Klinghoffer joined the band as a full-time member in 2010 to replace longtime guitarist John Frusciante. But in 2019, after performing on two studio albums, he was fired by his bandmates after Frusciante chose to return to the group. He later served as a touring musician for Pearl Jam and has released solo material under the pseudonym Pluralone.
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Klinghoffer of wrongful death and negligence — meaning that he allegedly knew that what he was doing was dangerous but did it anyway.
“Klinghoffer … was more focused on his personal business than on acting as a responsible driver,” the lawsuit says. “These decisions culminated in the motor vehicle, inflicting fatal injuries on decedent, whodied a horrific and excruciating death.”
The complaint does not specify how much the family is seeking in monetary damages.
A group of consumers have dropped a class action lawsuit against Spotify over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, a case that claimed the streamer left users holding “a useless product.”
Filed in May, the case came just days after Spotify announced that the Car Thing — a device launched in 2021 for playing music in a car — would be bricked in December. The customers claimed the move left them “with nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
But less than two months later, attorneys for the jilted consumers said Tuesday (July 9) that they would drop the lawsuit. The move came without explanation and does not indicate that any kind of settlement with Spotify was reached.
Trending on Billboard
In their initial complaint, the aggrieved buyers claimed Spotify had refused to offer refunds and, at the time of the lawsuit’s filing, the company’s FAQ addressing the deactivation did not make any mention of refunds. It simply told users that Spotify was “not offering any trade-in options” and urged them to consider “safely disposing of your device following local electronic waste guidelines.”
But after the news of the lawsuit had spread, Spotify’s website was updated to include a new section covering refunds. In the updated text, Spotify tells users: “Individuals seeking a refund can contact customer support with proof of purchase to discuss their options.”
It’s unclear if the move to more clearly offer refunds resulted in the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and neither side immediately returned requests for more information. But the voluntary dismissal was made “without prejudice,” meaning the accusers could refile the case at some point in the future if they choose to do so.
Spotify announced Car Thing in April 2021, saying it would provide users with a “seamless and personalized in-car listening experience.” The product — a touch screen with a physical dial that still requires access to a smartphone — rolled out in February 2022 at a price point of $89.99. But just months later, Spotify said it would cease production, telling investors that they “frankly haven’t seen the volume at the higher prices that would make the current product financially viable.”
Then in May, Spotify alerted users that it would stop supporting the devices entirely. The company told users that it was “not a decision we made lightly” and offered a link to customer service to “ensure that you have the right place to reach out if you have any questions.” A week later, the company confirmed in a public statement that the move, set to take effect Dec. 9, would render the devices fully inoperable.
On May 28, three Car Thing buyers — Hamza Mazumder, Anthony Bracarello and Luke Martin — filed their lawsuit, accusing Spotify of violating state and federal laws by essentially duping their clients into buying a “useless product.”
“Had plaintiffs and other members of the class known that Spotify manufactured the Car Thing with the ability to brick the product at any point after its introduction to the marketplace and in Spotify’s total discretion, they would not have bought a Car Thing, or would have paid substantially less for them,” the lawsuit read.
A legal battle over Nirvana‘s iconic smiley face logo will end in a settlement, resolving years of sprawling litigation between the band, fashion designer Marc Jacobs and a former Geffen Records art designer who claims he created it.
In a notice filed in Los Angeles federal court on Tuesday, attorneys for all three sides said they had accepted a mediator’s proposal to end the long-running case over the logo, which has appeared on countless t-shirts and other merch in the years since Kurt Cobain’s death.
Attorneys told Judge John A. Kronstadt that they would formalize the settlement within 21 days, and the judge later removed all upcoming hearings and other deadlines. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, and each side did not return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
Nirvana’s logo – a yellow smiley face with X’d-out eyes — first appeared during promotion for 1991’s Nevermind. The design eventually became something of an unofficial emblem for the band, and has become particularly prominent again in recent years amid a wave of 90s nostalgia among younger music fans.
The band’s lawyers first sued Marc Jacobs in 2018, accusing the design house of using a look-alike image on a line of its own t-shirts and other apparel called “Bootleg Redux Grunge.” They said Jacobs had just replaced “Nirvana” with the word “Heaven” and replaced the two eyes with an “M” and a “J,” but had changed little else.
“Defendants’ use of Nirvana’s copyrighted image on and to promote its products is intentional, and is part and parcel of a wider campaign to associate [the Grunge line] with Nirvana, one of the founders of the ‘grunge’ musical genre,” the band’s attorneys wrote at the time.
In their initial complaint, Nirvana’s lawyers said the smiley face had been created by the late Cobain – the conventional wisdom for decades about the logo’s origins. But soon after the case was filed, a former Geffen art director named Robert Fisher jumped into the case: “It is, in fact, Mr. Fisher, who authored the Happy Face, not Mr. Kurt Cobain.”
“For 30 years now, Nirvana has reaped enormous profits from Mr. Fisher’s works through the sale of a wide range of products,” his lawyers wrote. “Assisted by a team of lawyers and managers, Nirvana was able to do so without any compensation to Mr. Fisher by falsely claiming authorship and ownership.”
Since Fisher entered the case, the band’s lawyers have staunchly maintained that it was Cobain who designed the image. At the very least, they’ve argued, if it was Fisher who created the image, he did so when he was employed by Geffen at the time – meaning it was a “work for hire” and the label retained all rights to the image.
In December, Judge Kronstadt largely agreed with Nirvana on that issue. Fisher later sought to appeal that ruling, but the judge denied that motion last month, saying he would need to wait until after Nirvana and Marc Jacobs went to trial to file an appeal.
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: A new copyright rule on streaming royalties and termination rights is hailed as a “landmark victory” for songwriters; a judge rules on the latest legal battle inside the Prince estate; a band called Jellyroll drops its trademark lawsuit against Jelly Roll; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: ‘Landmark Victory’ On Termination & Streaming
The U.S. Copyright Office has finalized a new rule to clear up uncertainty about who gets paid streaming royalties when songwriters take back their music rights – a wonky subject, but one that roused superstars and advocacy groups into action to secure a “landmark victory” for songwriters.The new rule addresses complicated issues about how the Music Modernization Act’s blanket license for streaming royalties interacts with so-called termination rights – a federal provision that empowers authors to reclaim the rights to their copyrighted works decades after selling them away.It seems straightforward that if a songwriter invokes termination to win back their songs, they should get paid for them. But due to complex legal questions (mind-meltingly complex, trust me on this), the Mechanical Licensing Collective had implemented a policy that critics warned might keep streaming royalties flowing – in perpetuity – to the companies that used to own the rights.Following a multi-year effort that included a push from artists like Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Sting, Bob Seger, Maren Morris, John Mayer and many others, the Copyright Office overturned that “erroneous” approach this week. For more, go read our full story, complete with an explainer of the legal issues, reactions from the industry, and access to the text of the new rule.
Other top stories this week…
PRINCE ESTATE FIGHT – A Delaware judge issued a key decision in the latest legal battle over the Prince estate, ruling that a group of the star’s heirs could not oust two of Prince’s former business advisors (L. Londell McMillan and Charles Spicer Jr.) from leadership roles. The judge said the advisors had been vested with “broad” authority and could not be removed after one heir “came to regret this decision.”JELLYROLL v. JELLY ROLL – The leader of a Philadelphia wedding band called “Jellyroll” agreed to drop a trademark lawsuit he filed earlier this year against rapper-turned-country singer Jelly Roll, claiming he had settled the case by reaching an “amicable agreement” with the superstar artist. But the move to drop the case was unilateral and the artists reps did not confirm that any kind of deal had been reached.CARDI B COPYRIGHT – The rapper was sued for copyright infringement by a pair of producers (Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar) who claim that Cardi used their earlier track without permission in her hit single “Enough (Miami).”DIDDY SUED AGAIN – Sean “Diddy” Combs was hit with another sexual abuse case, this time by an exotic dancer named Adria English who claims she was a victim of a sex trafficking operation. Like one of the many previous cases against Combs, the new lawsuit claims he and others violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, the federal “RICO” law that’s historically been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other organized crime rings.LYRICAL PROBATION? Following an 11-year prison sentence on federal gun charges, New Orleans rapper B.G. will be required to provide the U.S. Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics to his upcoming songs before producing and promoting them. The arrangement – the product of an agreement between prosecutors and defense attorneys – came months after prosecutors arrested B.G. for violating his parole by performing at a Las Vegas concert alongside rapper Lil Boosie.
Trending on Billboard
GUITAR RULING SHREDDED – A federal appeals court overturned a jury verdict won by guitar maker Gibson against a smaller company that allegedly copied the trademarked shape of the Flying V and other iconic designs. The reason? The appeals court said the trial judge improperly excluded key evidence that might have helped show that the design was too “generic” for trademark protection.
The leader of a Philadelphia wedding band called Jellyroll has agreed to drop a trademark lawsuit he filed earlier this year against rapper-turned-country singer Jelly Roll.
The case accused Jelly Roll (Jason DeFord) of infringing the trademark to “Jellyroll” — a name Kurt Titchenell says he’s used for decades for an act the Philadelphia Inquirer has labeled as “Philly’s favorite wedding band.”
But in a court filing on Tuesday (July 9), Titchenell agreed to voluntarily drop his lawsuit permanently. In a statement, Titchenell said he had “settled” the case by reaching an “amicable agreement” with the superstar artist: “We look forward to our continued use of the name, Jellyroll Band, in connection with our party band business.”
Trending on Billboard
Court records do not confirm that such a settlement was reached. The filing dismissing the case was not signed by attorneys for Jelly Roll, and instead simply dropped the case against him unilaterally. A spokeswoman for the star did not immediately return a request for comment.
Titchenell sued in April, claiming that Jelly Roll’s increasing popularity — his “Need A Favor” reached No. 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 in November — has flooded the market with his name, making it difficult for prospective clients to find Titchenell’s band.
“Prior to the defendant’s recent rise in notoriety, a search of the name of Jellyroll … returned references to the plaintiff,” his lawyers write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Now, any such search on Google returns multiple references to defendant, perhaps as many as 18-20 references, before any reference to plaintiff’s entertainment dance band known as Jellyroll can be found.”
Titchnell claimed he’s been using the name for his band since 1980. In a 2019 Inquirer article marking the band’s 40th anniversary, the newspaper described Jellyroll as a group that nearly every Philadelphian has likely heard at some point, at one of thousands of weddings, galas and other public events.
In media interviews, Jelly Roll has said that his mother gave him the nickname as a child. He used the name on a 2003 self-released mixtape called The Plain Shmear Tape, and then on dozens of subsequent releases over nearly two decades as a little-known Nashville rapper.
The two artists appear to have peacefully co-existed until recently when Jelly Roll climbed the charts and became a household name. Following his breakout 2021 hit “Son of a Sinner” and last year’s “Need A Favor,” he was nominated for Best New Artist at this year’s Grammy Awards and won a trio of major honors at this year’s Country Music Awards.
In the April lawsuit, Titchenell’s attorneys had asked for an immediate court order that would stop the star from using the name “Jelly Roll.” They specifically pointed to an upcoming concert at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center in October: “Despite his receipt of a demand to cease and desist using plaintiff’s registered service mark, defendant has ignored this demand.”
The U.S. Copyright Office has finalized a new rule aimed at ensuring that songwriters who invoke termination rights to regain control of their music will actually start getting paid streaming royalties after they do so.
The provision, issued on Tuesday, will overturn what the Copyright Office called an “erroneous” earlier policy by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, which critics feared would have kept sending money from streamers like Spotify to former owners in perpetuity, long after a songwriter took back ownership.
Proposals to force the MLC to change that approach, first reported by Billboard in 2022, were supported by a slew of songwriters like Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and Sting, who feared they would be “deprived of the rights afforded to them by copyright law.” The effort was led by groups including the Music Artists Coalition, Songwriters of North America, Black Music Action Coalition and the Recording Academy.
Trending on Billboard
In a statement on Tuesday, Music Artists Coalition board member Jordan Bromley called the Copyright Office’s new termination rule a “landmark victory for songwriters.”
“This decision not only ensures fair compensation for songwriters who reclaim their rights, but also sets a precedent that strengthens the very foundation of copyright law in the digital age,” Bromley said. “It’s a clear message that in the evolving landscape of music streaming and licensing, the rights of creators must be protected and respected.”
A spokeswoman for the MLC did not return a request for comment.
HOW IT WORKS
The new rule issued Tuesday addresses complex questions about how MLC’s blanket license for streaming royalties, created by the Music Modernization Act in 2018, interacts with so-called termination rights – a federal provision that empowers authors to reclaim the rights to their copyrighted works decades after selling them away.
Though a powerful tool for songwriters, termination comes with an important exception. Even though a publisher must hand back the rights to the original song, they’re entitled to keep selling any existing “derivative works” they created when they owned it. Those continue to be fair game, and any fees under existing licenses keep flowing back to their old publisher.
That exception makes practical sense: It would be unfair to let a terminating songwriter suddenly send cease-and-desists over a famous sample that had been legal when it was initially cleared, or sue over a movie that featured the song under a synch license. But it also creates difficult ambiguity for the MLC and the blanket license.
Say a songwriter terminates their publisher’s control of their music. The writer is now the owner of those songs — that’s easy to figure out. But by paying the MLC for access to the blanket license, Spotify arguably already has an existing license in place with the old publisher. So, isn’t the copy of the song on Spotify an existing derivative work? And shouldn’t the royalties from it continue to go to the old publisher under that license?
Under a dispute resolution policy issued by MLC in 2021, that appeared to be the case. The rules seemed to choose who to pay based on when a song was uploaded to a digital streamer’s servers; if it was uploaded prior to when a songwriter invoked their termination right, the royalties would keep going to the old owner — seemingly forever.
The MLC’s approach was not intended as a scheme to hurt songwriters. According to the Copyright Office, the group saw it as a “middle ground,” aimed at preventing drawn-out disputes that would lock up royalty payments “to the disadvantage of both songwriters and publishers.” But advocates argued that it would undermine the very purpose of termination rights, which were created to level the playing field for small creators who sold their works away to powerful companies.
In October 2022, the Copyright Office largely agreed. In a proposed new rule, the agency said the MLC’s policy was based on an “erroneous understanding and application of current law.” Ordering the group to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” the proposal said that when a songwriter gets their rights back, they should obviously start getting the royalties, too.
Nearly two years later, that rule was finalized on Tuesday. The final version retains most of the core features of the original proposal, though certain elements have been changed to address “practical and administrative concerns” raised by industry groups. In particular, the agency said it had modified how the rule identifies the payee to whom the MLC must distribute royalties, and pushed back deadlines to give the MLC more time to “update its processes and systems.”
QUIETING THE CRITICS
Over the past two years, the proposed rule underwent a so-called public comment period, during which it was met with both support and criticism from outside groups. According to Tuesday’s final rule, one of the “principal critics” was the National Music Publisher’s Association, which argued that the MLC’s original approach had been supported by historical precedent in industry practice.
In the new rule, the Copyright Office said it was “not persuaded by NMPA’s argument” on that issue.
“We do not dispute NMPA’s assertion that certain publishers may have adopted a different approach to termination, but this approach is not supported by the law in the context of the blanket license,” the agency wrote. “The Office is not adopting a new position, or changing the law as it relates to termination or the exception. Nor are we contending that the MMA or blanket license altered the law as it relates to the exception. The Office is merely stating what the law is and has always been.”
The Copyright Office also rejected separate arguments from the NMPA that the new rule was an impermissible “retroactive” rule, or even an unconstitutional “taking” that violated the Fifth Amendment. In doing so, the agency said that “these royalties always belonged to the post-termination copyright owner” and that the new rule simply “implements the law as it already existed.”
Despite earlier disagreements, NMPA President & CEO David Israelite celebrated the final enactment of the rule in a statement Tuesday, saying the group was pleased with a policy that “ensures songwriters are properly and expediently paid post termination.”
“Having clear guidance on this issue will make the MLC and larger industry even more efficient as it gives a clear roadmap to those who have decided to reclaim their copyrights,” Israelite said. “The songwriter groups deserve much credit for working with the Copyright Office and music publishers to push for this decision.”
A spokesperson for the NMPA declined to comment the Copyright Office’s decisions on the group’s specific objections.
Notably, the new rule will not just change the MLC’s approach going forward, but also require “corrective royalty adjustments” to address any money that was paid improperly under the old policy. But such payments are likely to be relatively small: In filings, the MLC has said that it voluntarily suspended the old termination policy while the case played out at the Copyright Office, and that it expects any corrections to total “less than $2 million.”
You can read the entire new rule here.
Pressure on Congress is heating up to pass legislation that will clean up the live events ticketing business following May’s passage of the Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act in the House of Representatives.
The Fix the Tix Coalition, led by the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), is calling for a nationwide day of action Tuesday (July 9) to encourage music fans, professionals and supporters to lobby their congressional representatives to pass meaningful legislation that will curb the growing problem of ticketing scams and deceptive practices in the live music business.
NIVA and other members of the Fix the Tix coalition, which also includes the Recording Academy and the National Independent Talent Organization, are backing their own legislation — the Senate’s Fans First Act, supported by U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) — while also supporting passage of the TICKET Act, which is sponsored by Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), among others.
Trending on Billboard
Both bills would ban the use of speculative ticket listings on sites like StubHub and SeatGeek, require all-in-pricing before checkout and crack down on the use of deceptive websites and URLs. The Fans First Act would also require resellers to disclose seat locations on their resale listings, ban scalpers from using fan clubs to buy up some concert tickets and include greater consumer protections for canceled events.
Fix The Tix officials are asking fans, artists, and members of the music and performance communities to reach out to Congress on Tuesday to demand action by the end of 2024.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the TICKET Act in a 388-24 vote on May 15. The bill is currently before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
A case study conducted by Fix The Tix across five independent venues in the Washington, D.C., area shows that in 2024, 73,000 speculative tickets totaling an estimated $49 million have been listed on resale platforms. Speculative tickets are tickets that aren’t actually available for purchase but are sold to consumers at a considerable markup by sellers who promise to procure and deliver the tickets prior to the concert. These listings can often be misleading and lead to fraud.
“The Fix the Tix Day of Action is an important moment for all of us who believe in fair and transparent ticketing,” said Stephen Parker, executive director of NIVA, in a press release. “It’s a time to elevate the voices of fans and artists and harness their power as constituents. This is more than a one-day campaign. It’s a collective cry to protect the integrity of live performance. We urge Congress to listen to the voices of fans and artists and put comprehensive ticketing reform on their list of must-pass legislation in 2024, alongside other critical legislation such as FY 2025 Appropriations and the Farm Bill.”
Information on how to contact senators, members of Congress and the White House for tomorrow’s day of action can be found at fixthetix.org.
Prince’s former business advisors have won a key ruling in their ongoing legal battle with three of the pop legend’s heirs over the management of his estate.
In a decision issued Friday, a Delaware judge ruled that advisors L. Londell McMillan and Charles Spicer Jr. could not be ousted as mangers of Prince Legacy LLC, a company created to operate half of Prince’s lucrative estate.
Three of Prince’s heirs, led by his sister Sharon Nelson, had argued they could amend the LLC agreement to remove McMillan and Spicer from their leadership positions, but the judge ruled that such efforts were clearly invalid under the terms of the agreement.
“The LLC agreement is unambiguous and [McMillan and Spicer]’s interpretation is the only reasonable one,” Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote in the decision, which was obtained by Billboard.
Trending on Billboard
Ruling that Prince’s heirs had vested the two advisors with “broad and exclusive management authority,” the judge said they could not now amend their agreement simply because they “came to regret this decision.”
An attorney for Sharon Nelson and the other Prince heirs did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
Prince had no will when he died of a fentanyl overdose in 2016, leaving six heirs to inherit equal shares in his valuable estate and sparking a long legal battle in Minnesota probate court over how the estate would be managed in the future.
When the court case finally wrapped up in August 2022, the estate was split into two companies – one controlled by Primary Wave after it purchased the shares of three heirs, and another (Prince Legacy) controlled by McMillan, Spicer and the three remaining relatives. At the time, both sides vowed to work together to bring Prince’s music and legacy to a new generation of music fans.
But in January, McMillan and Spicer sued their partners within Prince Legacy, claiming Nelson and other heirs were improperly trying to force them out as managers and “install themselves” in their place. McMillan and Spicer claimed Nelson had become “disgruntled” because they had refused to comply with her “unreasonable demands. They cited one incident in which she allegedly attempted “replace the entire staff” of Prince’s legendary Paisley Park home “with individuals of her choosing.”
The lawsuit argued that the efforts to oust McMillan and Spicer were not only barred by Prince Legacy’s operating agreement, but also posed a threat to their efforts “to preserve and protect Prince’s legacy.”
“The individual defendants lack any business and management experience, have no experience in the music and entertainment industries, and have no experience negotiating and managing high-level deals in the entertainment industry,” attorneys for McMillan and Spicer wrote at the time. “They have a documented history of infighting. Based on the amount and complexity of the work that Prince Legacy is involved with, they are simply not capable of stepping in and managing its business.”
In Friday’s decision, McCormick sided decisively with McMillan and Spicer, granting them summary judgment on their core allegation: That Nelson’s effort to amend the LLC agreement had been invalid under terms of the deal.
“Defendants’ interpretation … would lead to the absurd result of giving the non-managing members the authority to unilaterally take actions on behalf of the company and bind the company without the approval of the managing members,” the judge wrote in her ruling.
In a statement to Billboard following the ruling, McMillan said: “We are pleased with the judge’s decision and wish we were not forced to take legal action for the wrongdoing of the defendants (and their advisors) yet we have a heavy responsibility to preserve and protect Prince’s legacy and all he created, by all appropriate means necessary. I have protected Prince and been his partner for decades. Nothing will change our history and my loyalty to him and his legacy.”
Friday’s decision will not end the lawsuit, because McCormick also ruled that McMillan and Spicer could to pursue their related allegation that Nelson and the other heirs had breached that contract when they attempted to amend the LLC agreement. That claim will be subject to future litigation.
Primary Wave, which controls the other half of Prince’s estate, is not involved in the litigation nor accused of any wrongdoing.