The Mechanical Licensing Collective and Pandora Media filed competing motions for summary judgment last week in a two-year-old lawsuit accusing the music streaming service of underpaying royalties owed to rights holders.
Both parties submitted their filings on Thursday (February 5) in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, each claiming the undisputed facts support their position.
The MLC argues that features on Pandora’s ad-supported service, including on-demand listening sessions, unlimited skips and replays, and personalized programming qualify it as an “interactive service” requiring mechanical royalty payments to songwriters and publishers.
“Pandora’s website openly describes its three streaming services, listing ‘search and play what you want’ as a feature of each service, including Pandora Free. After logging into Pandora Free, users see a popup window pointing to a search box and telling the user to ‘search and play your favorite songs on-demand for free’,” the MLC said in its latest filing, which you can read here.
In a letter sent by the MLC to Pandora in November 2021, it said: “[Pandora Free] is thus an interactive streaming offering, and the music streams provided to users of [Pandora Free] are Covered Activity… The MLC concludes that, while Pandora appears to have reported play information correctly, it has not correctly reported royalty payment and accounting information as required.”
However, Pandora argues in its motion (read here) that its free tier operates as noninteractive internet radio, which exempts its from the mechanical licensing requirement of Section 115 of the Copyright Act.
“[I]t is undisputed that free Pandora users do not have the ability to select a particular sound recording of their choosing. The MLC’s argument is instead that the availability of on-demand listening within Premium Access sessions infects the remainder of free Pandora listening occurring outside those sessions.”
Premium Access sessions are 30-minute windows where free users can access Pandora Premium features after watching video ads.
The MLC said Pandora had responded to its November 2021 notice with a letter from outside counsel that “categorically reject[ed]” the MLC’s letter and “refused to correct previous usage reporting or make additional royalty payments.”
“Pandora also offered a variety of admissions within its denials, including that ‘Pandora offers interactive streams to non-subscribers.’ Pandora qualified that admission with the words ‘solely in Premium Access sessions,’ but the qualification does not change the admission that a feature of Pandora Free provides the ability to select and play music on demand,” said the MLC.
In its summary judgment motion, Pandora raised new issues, arguing that the MLC lacks proper authority to bring such enforcement actions.
“This litigation, funded in part by Pandora’s own assessments to the MLC, arises out of a gross overreach by the MLC to try to force Pandora to pay vast sums for additional mechanical rights it does not need to operate its longstanding noninteractive free radio service.”
“This litigation, funded in part by Pandora’s own assessments to the MLC, arises out of a gross overreach by the MLC to try to force Pandora to pay vast sums for additional mechanical rights it does not need to operate its longstanding noninteractive free radio service.”
Pandora
Pandora added: “Exploiting—indeed, abusing—its limited statutory role as an administrative middleman, the MLC seeks to use civil litigation to overturn two decades of industry practice and force upon Pandora a novel and incorrect interpretation of the Copyright Act.”
It said: “[T]he MLC assumes in this litigation the unfettered authority to bring suit to vindicate the interests of third parties in Pandora’s licensing arrangements under various provisions of the Copyright Act.”
In response, the MLC said it “works closely with blanket licensees to ensure their compliance with the reporting and royalty payment obligations set forth in the Music Modernization Act.”
The MLC, established by the Music Modernization Act of 2018, serves as the sole entity authorized to collect and distribute these “mechanical royalties” due for the reproduction and distribution of musical works.
“The MLC brought this action to ensure that our Members receive all the mechanical royalties they are due in connection with Pandora’s use of their songs.”
The MLC
“In this instance, our team repeatedly sought to resolve concerns about Pandora’s underpayment of royalties, but Pandora refused to address these concerns. The MLC brought this action to ensure that our Members receive all the mechanical royalties they are due in connection with Pandora’s use of their songs. We have now moved for summary judgment because the undisputed evidence proves our claims,” the MLC said in its summary judgment motion.
The MLC said Pandora litigated the case for nearly 2 years without moving to dismiss.
“Pandora’s Answer asserted affirmative defenses of equitable estoppel, waiver, and failure to state a claim, but Pandora did not move to dismiss the Complaint,” the collective said.
The MLC brought its lawsuit against Pandora in 2024, coinciding with its first-ever re-designation process, under which the US Copyright Office initiated five-year review of the MLC and the Digital Licensee Coordinator (DLC).
Elsewhere, the MLC also sued streaming giant Spotify in May 2024 over its alleged underpayment of royalties to songwriters and publishers by “bundling” its Premium subscription with access to audiobooks. However, that lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice” in January 2025. The MLC then asked the court to reconsider the dismissal.
“Pandora’s Answer asserted affirmative defenses of equitable estoppel, waiver, and failure to state a claim, but Pandora did not move to dismiss the Complaint.”
The MLC
Then in November, the MLC sent a pre-motion letter to Judge Analisa Torres announcing its intention to request a so-called ‘interlocutory appeal’, a rare type of immediate review that would allow the organization to challenge the judge’s dismissal of the original claim before the full case is resolved.
Most recently last month, Spotify argued that the MLC waited nearly a year too long to request an expedited review and said that it fails to meet the legal requirements for an immediate appeal.
In a statement to MBW last month, the MLC explained its position: “In September, the district court granted The MLC’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated our case against Spotify, recognizing that we had raised multiple plausible claims. However, the Court also upheld its earlier ruling dismissing our original claims related to Spotify’s recharacterization of its Premium offerings as Bundles.
“We are now seeking leave to appeal that earlier ruling immediately because of the significant impact that ruling is already having on rightsholders and the fact that the bundling issue has not yet been reviewed by any appellate court.”
Music Business Worldwide
