The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) and Pandora Media have each filed opposition briefs in their legal battle over whether the streaming service has underpaid royalties owed to rights holders.
Both filings landed on March 5 in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, one month after each party filed competing motions for summary judgment in the two-year-old lawsuit.
The case centers on whether Pandora’s ad-supported radio service, Pandora Free, qualifies as an “interactive service” under the Copyright Act — and is therefore subject to mechanical royalty obligations for the entirety of its streams.
The MLC, established by the Music Modernization Act of 2018, serves as the sole entity authorized to collect and distribute “mechanical royalties” due for the reproduction and distribution of musical works.
“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Pandora’s motion is that it admits the material facts and does not meaningfully contest the operative statutory test.”
THE MLC
In its opposition brief, which you can read here, the MLC argues that Pandora’s own motion effectively concedes the case, noting that the streaming service does not dispute the key features available on Pandora Free.
“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Pandora’s motion is that it admits the material facts and does not meaningfully contest the operative statutory test,” the MLC said.
The collective argues that three features available on Pandora Free — personalized music programs, the ability to skip and replay songs, and on-demand track selection — each independently qualify it as an “interactive service” under the Copyright Act.
“Pandora does not just give users access to all three features, Pandora advertises that it gives users access to all three features,” the MLC said.
In its latest filing, the MLC pointed to deposition testimony from Pandora’s own witness on royalty reporting, arguing that Pandora’s internal guidelines acknowledge mechanical royalties are owed for all songs played on services where a listener has “the ability to” replay a song or select a specific track. The MLC said this was consistent with repeated admissions by Pandora executives in SEC filings and other legal proceedings.
In a statement to MBW, a spokesperson for the MLC said: “The vast amount of evidence The MLC’s motion cites confirms that Pandora Free is an “interactive service” and that Pandora has improperly underpaid royalties due to copyright owners under the Blanket License.
“The MLC looks forward to receiving a favorable decision on our motion, so that our Members receive all the mechanical royalties they are owed in connection with the use of their songs by Pandora on the Pandora Free service.”
“The MLC devotes the initial two-thirds of its brief to breathlessly recounting years-old statements from Pandora employees and marketers.”
PANDORA
However, in its own opposition brief (read here), Pandora accuses the MLC of misrepresenting both the law and how its service actually works.
“The MLC devotes the initial two-thirds of its brief to breathlessly recounting years-old statements from Pandora employees and marketers using the term ‘interactive’ in ordinary English parlance as if those colloquial characterizations could replace the legal analysis required of this Court,” Pandora said in its filing.
Pandora cited the Second Circuit’s landmark Launch Media decision, which held that how a company describes its own service does not determine its legal classification under the Copyright Act.
The streaming service’s central argument remains that its Premium Access feature — which allows free-tier users to access on-demand listening in 30-minute sessions after watching a video ad — is a separate “component” from its core internet radio offering, and is already separately licensed.
“The MLC goes to near-comical lengths to avoid confronting this reality, refusing not only to grapple with how Premium Access sessions work, or should be treated under the governing law, but even to acknowledge their existence,” Pandora said.
Pandora also argued that two of the MLC’s theories — that its personalized radio stations are too tailored to qualify as noninteractive, and that the Pandora Plus subscription tier is improperly categorized — were never raised in the original 2024 complaint and should be considered waived.
Pandora said the personalization argument was “all the more egregious and inexcusable” given that the company has been publicly offering customized radio stations since 2005.
On personalization, Pandora argued that its internet radio stations are comparable to those found noninteractive in Launch Media more than 15 years ago, and that its algorithm-driven song selection gives users no ability to predict or control which songs will play.
The MLC called Pandora’s constitutional argument — that the MLC lacks authority to bring enforcement actions — “desperate and unfounded,” noting that Pandora litigated the case for two years without raising the issue.
The case is now before Judge Eli J. Richardson in the Middle District of Tennessee.
The dispute is the latest in a series of legal battles the MLC has waged against major streaming platforms over royalty compliance.
The collective is also pursuing separate legal action against Spotify over the streamer’s reclassification of its Premium tiers as ‘bundles’ following the addition of audiobook access — a move that resulted in lower mechanical royalty payments to songwriters. The MLC’s original bundling claims were dismissed in January 2025, but the court later allowed the collective to file an amended complaint with new theories of liability. In January, the MLC was seeking an immediate appeal of the original dismissal.Music Business Worldwide
