Spotify is demanding that a federal judge toss out a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective over royalty rates, calling the case “nonsensical” and “wasteful.”
The MLC sued earlier this year, claiming Spotify had “unilaterally and unlawfully” chosen to cut its music royalty payments nearly in half through bookmaking trickery – namely, by claiming that the addition of audiobooks to the service entitled the company to pay a lower “bundled” rate.
But in a motion to dismiss filed in court Wednesday, Spotify calls those claims “meritless and wasteful” – arguing that making hundreds of thousands of audiobooks available to subscribers was not a “token” gesture aimed at reducing music royalties.
“MLC’s position is nonsensical and factually unsupportable,” Spotify’s lawyers write. “And it profoundly devalues the contributions of the tens of thousands of book authors whose works are available with a Spotify Premium subscription—from literary luminaries, to mainstays on best sellers lists, to up-and-coming writers who are finding their audience.”
The MLC, which collects streaming royalties for songwriters and publishers, filed its lawsuit in late May — a week after Billboard estimated that Spotify’s move would result in the company paying roughly $150 million less over the next year. In its complaint, the MLC claimed Spotify was “erroneously recharacterizing” the nature of its streaming services to secure the lower rate.
“The financial consequences of Spotify’s failure to meet its statutory obligations are enormous for songwriters and music publishers,” the group’s attorneys wrote at the time. “If unchecked, the impact on songwriters and music publishers of Spotify’s unlawful underreporting could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
At issue in the lawsuit is Spotify’s recent addition of audiobooks to its premium subscription service. The streamer believes that because of the new offering, it’s now entitled to pay a discounted “bundled” royalty rate under the federal legal settlement that governs how much streamers pay rightsholders.
In Tuesday’s motion, Spotify’s lawyers strongly defend that interpretation. They argue that the market for audiobooks has attracted “billions in consumer dollars” and that adding books was the kind of valuable new perk that had been intended to be covered by the lower bundled rate.
“At the heart of this dispute is an easily answered question: Is audiobook streaming distinct from music streaming, offering greater than token value?” the company’s lawyers write. “The answer is indisputably yes, and there is no need for federal court litigation to confirm it.”
The rule at issue says that streamers can use the bundled rate if they offer “one or more other products or services having more than token value.” Claiming that more than 200,000 audiobooks does not qualify under that rule is “baffling,” Spotify’s lawyers write.
“The creative output of these authors is not merely of ‘token value’,” Tuesday’s filing says. “Acceptance of that unassailable, commonsense proposition should end this meritless and wasteful litigation.”
MLC’s attorneys will file a formal response to the motion in court in the coming months.
