Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 43
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`PRO MUSIC RIGHTS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE, LLC, SPOTIFY
`AB, SPOTIFY USA, INC., SPOTIFY
`LIMITED, SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY S.A.,
`DIGITAL MEDIA ASSOCIATION,
`NATIONAL RELIGIOUS
`BROADCASTERS MUSIC LICENSE
`COMMITTEE, RADIO MUSIC LICENSE
`COMMITTEE, INC., THE NATIONAL
`ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
`WINERIES, TELEVISION MUSIC
`LICENSE COMMITTEE, LLC, 7DIGITAL
`GROUP, INC., 7DIGITAL, INC., 7DIGITAL
`GROUP PLC, 7DIGITAL LIMITED,
`DEEZER, S.A., DEEZER INC.,
`IHEARTMEDIA, INC., CONNOISSEUR
`MEDIA LLC, PANDORA MEDIA, LLC,
`RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`SOUNDCLOUD LIMITED, and
`SOUNDCLOUD INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No.: 3:20-cv-00309 (JAM)
`
` Filed: August 7, 2020
`
` ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 43
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii
`
`Preliminary Statement ......................................................................................................................1
`
`Statement of the Case.......................................................................................................................1
`
`I. Performing Rights Organizations .............................................................................................1
`
`II. The Defendants and Their Use of Musical Works ...................................................................3
`
`III. PMR, Its Litigation History, and Its Current Claims Against the Defendants .........................5
`
`Argument .........................................................................................................................................8
`
`I.
`
`
`
`The Complaint Does Not Plausibly Allege Any Conspiracy.........................................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Conspiracy Allegations Are Purely Conclusory .............................................10
`
`The Complaint Does Not Allege Conscious Parallelism or the “Plus Factors”
`From Which this Court Could Reasonably Infer the Existence of an Unlawful
`Conspiracy .............................................................................................................14
`
`C.
`
`The Alleged Conspiracy Is Implausible .................................................................21
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Dismiss PMR’s Monopsonization Claims Because the Law
`Rejects Shared Monopsonization As a Theory, and Because PMR Insufficiently
`Pleads Essential Elements of the Claims .....................................................................24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`PMR’s Manufactured Shared Monopsony Theory Fails to State a Claim.............26
`
`PMR Has Failed to Allege Essential Elements of Its Section 2 Claims ................27
`
`III.
`
`PMR’s Claims Under Connecticut Law Also Fail to State a Claim ............................31
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 3 of 43
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`AD/SAT v. Associated Press,
`181 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................12, 13
`
`Anderson News, LLC v. Am. Media, Inc.,
`680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012).......................................................................................................9
`
`Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC,
`532 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)......................................................................................26
`
`ASCAP v. MobiTV, Inc.,
`681 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012).......................................................................................................17
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................9, 24, 28, 29
`
`Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`813 F. Supp. 2d 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................................................28
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`BMI v. CBS,
`441 U.S. 1 (1979) .............................................................................................................5, 7, 16
`
`Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim,
`32 A.3d 296 (Conn. 2011) ................................................................................................ 31, 32
`
`BMI v. DMX Inc.,
`683 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2012).........................................................................................................2
`
`B.V. Optische Industrie De Oude Delft v. Hologic,
`909 F. Supp. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ..........................................................................................28
`
`CDC Techs., Inc. v. IDEXX Labs., Inc.,
`7 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D. Conn. 1998),
`aff’d, 186 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................33
`
`Chapman v. N.Y. State Div. for Youth,
`546 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................28
`
`Concord Assocs., L.P. v. Ent. Prop. Tr.,
`817 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016).................................................................................................27, 28
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 4 of 43
`
`DAG Enters. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,
`No. 00-0182 (CKK),
`2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22729 (D.D.C. 2000) .........................................................................27
`
`Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Motor Freight, Inc.,
`365 U.S. 127 (1961) .................................................................................................................16
`
`Flash Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Music & Video Distrub. Corp.,
`312 F. Supp. 2d 379 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .....................................................................................26
`
`Go N.Y. Tours, Inc. v. Gray Line N.Y. Tours, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-02832 (LAK),
`2019 WL 8435369 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2019) ...........................................................................26
`
`H.L. Hayden Co. v. Siemens Med. Sys.,
`879 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1989)...................................................................................................26
`
`Hinds Cty. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.,
`708 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)......................................................................................20
`
`In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`
`592 F. Supp. 2d 323 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ....................................................................................16
`
`In re Elevator Antitrust Litig.,
`502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007).................................................................................................11, 30
`
`In re IAC/InterActiveCorp Sec. Litig.,
`695 F. Supp. 2d 109 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)......................................................................................16
`
`In re Parcel Tanker Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig.,
`541 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Conn. 2008) ......................................................................................11
`
`In re Zinc Antitrust Litig.,
`155 F. Supp. 3d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................14
`
`Jarrow Formulas v. Int’l Nutrition Co.,
`175 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D. Conn. 2001) ......................................................................................16
`
`Kahn v. iBiquity Dig. Corp.,
`309 F. App’x 429 (2d Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................16
`
`Kendall v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................12, 13
`
`La. Wholesale Drug Co. v. Shire LLC (In re Adderall XR Antitrust Litig.),
`754 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................26, 30
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 5 of 43
`
`Lavoie v. Bayer Corp.,
`No. X01CV01010168392,
`2002 WL 230962 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002) ..............................................................................33
`
`MacDermid Printing Sols. LLC v. Cortron Corp.,
`833 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2016).....................................................................................................31
`
`Maple Flooring Mfrs. Ass’n v. United States,
`268 U.S. 563 (1925) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Mayor and Council of Balt. v. Citigroup, Inc.,
`709 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2013).........................................................................................10, 14, 15
`
`Meredith Corp. et al. v. SESAC, LLC, et al.,
`No. 09 Civ. 9177 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015) .................................................................19
`
`Meredith Corp. v. SESAC, LLC,
`1 F. Supp. 3d 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .............................................................................2, 3, 5, 18
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.,
`465 U.S. 752 (1984) .............................................................................................................9, 10
`
`N. Am. Energy Sys., LLC v. New Eng. Energy Mgmt., Inc.,
`269 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D. Conn. 2002) ........................................................................................33
`
`Pro Music Rights, LLC v. Google, LLC,
`No. 19-cv-11613, ECF No. 16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) .........................................................7
`
`Pro Music Rights LLC v. Spotify AB,
`No. 2:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2019) ..........................................................................6
`
`Prof’l Real Estate Inv’r , Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus.,
`508 U.S. 49 (1993) ...................................................................................................................18
`
`Radio Music License Comm., Inc. v. Glob. Music Rights, LLC,
`No. 19-03957 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2020)..................................................................................19
`
`Radio Music License Comm., Inc. v. SESAC Inc.,
` No. 12-CV-5807,
`2013 WL 12114098 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2013),
`report and recommendation adopted as modified,
`2014 WL 12617437 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2014) .........................................................................18
`
`Retail Serv. Assocs. v. ConAgra Pet Prod. Co.,
`759 F. Supp. 976 (D. Conn. 1991) .....................................................................................31, 32
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 6 of 43
`
`Robb v. Conn. Bd. of Veterinary Med.,
`157 F. Supp. 3d 130 (D. Conn. 2016) ..........................................................................13, 14, 15
`
`Roller Bearing Co. v. Am. Software, Inc.,
`No. 3:07CV01516 (DJS),
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155542 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2010)......................................................30
`
`Ross v. Am. Exp. Co.,
`35 F. Supp. 3d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2014),
`aff’d sub nom. Ross v. Citigroup, Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 79 (2d Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................................20
`
`RxUSA Wholesale Inc. v. Alcon Labs,
`391 F. App’x 59 (2d Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................21
`
`Shea v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
`439 A.2d 997 (Conn. 1981) .....................................................................................................31
`
`Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`158 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D. Conn.),
`aff’d, 666 F. App’x 84 (2d Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................33
`
`Sosa Entm’t v. Spotify AB,
`No. 2:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020) ...........................................................................6
`
`Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan,
`506 U.S. 447 (1993) .................................................................................................................26
`
`In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 13-MD-2445,
`2017 WL 4642285 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2017)............................................................................32
`
`Success Sys. v. Excentus Corp.,
`439 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D. Conn. 2020) ........................................................................................29
`
`In re Travel Agent Comm’n Antitrust Litig.,
`583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Twin City Bakery Workers & Welfare Fund v. Astra Aktiebolag,
`
`207 F. Supp. 2d 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) .....................................................................................16
`
`United Mine Workers v. Pennington,
`381 U.S. 657 (1965) .................................................................................................................16
`
`United States v. ASCAP,
`41 Civ. 1395 (S.D.N.Y.) ..........................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 7 of 43
`
`United States v. BMI,
`64 Civ. 3787 (S.D.N.Y.) ..........................................................................................................15
`
`United States v. BMI (In re Application of Music Choice),
`426 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................17
`
`United States v. Colgate & Co.,
`250 U.S. 300 (1919) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Venture Tech, Inc. v. Nat’l Fuel Gas Co.,
`685 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1982).......................................................................................................20
`
`Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004) .....................................................................................................21, 26, 30
`
`Virgin Atl. Airways Ltd. v. British Airways PLC,
`257 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................26
`
`Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp.,
`382 U.S. 172 (1965) .................................................................................................................29
`
`Statutes
`
`Sherman Act Section 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ................................................................................... passim
`
`Sherman Act Section 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2 ................................................................................. 7, 23-26
`
`15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) ......................................................................................................................31
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 106 .....................................................................................................................2
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504 ..............................................................................................................................22
`
`CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 35-26, 35-44b .............................................................................................31
`
`CONN. GEN. STAT. § 42-110b(a) ....................................................................................................33
`
`Rule
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authority
`
`ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW, PROOF OF CONSPIRACY UNDER FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS
`(2d ed. 2018) ..............................................................................................................................9
`
`DENNIS W. CARLTON & JEFFREY M. PERLOFF, MODERN INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION (4th ed.
`2005) ........................................................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 8 of 43
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`This antitrust suit is the latest effort by plaintiff Pro Music Rights, LLC (“PMR”) to achieve
`
`through litigation what it cannot on merit. PMR claims to be a performing rights organization
`
`(“PRO”) offering licenses to publicly perform the musical works in its repertory. Because its
`
`portfolio is so undesirable, PMR has been unsuccessful in its efforts. Yet on implausible and
`
`wholly conclusory allegations, it claims that a disparate group of Defendants—ranging from music
`
`streaming services, to entities that represent broadcast radio and television stations, to a wine
`
`industry association—has violated the antitrust laws by conspiring not to take licenses from PMR.
`
`But PMR alleges no facts suggesting more than Defendants’ separate, independent, and rational
`
`decisions not to buy what PMR is selling.
`
`PMR first asserts “buyer conspiracy” claims, but it alleges no facts or coherent rationale
`
`supporting the existence of this imagined conspiracy, nor does it identify a single action or
`
`communication by any Defendant in furtherance of one. Indeed, the Complaint does not even
`
`allege that any Defendant ever discussed PMR with any other Defendant. PMR also brings
`
`monopsonization claims based on the long, legally-rejected concept that a monopoly (or
`
`“monopsony”) can be “shared” by a group of independent firms. Here too, PMR offers nothing
`
`beyond its say-so. These conspiracy and monopsonization claims are precisely the type of
`
`conclusory and implausible antitrust claims that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
`
`(2007), and its progeny hold must be dismissed under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Complaint
`
`should be dismissed in its entirety.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`I.
`
`Performing Rights Organizations
`
`This lawsuit concerns rights in musical works—the underlying notes and lyrics written by
`
`a songwriter—not the separate copyrights in sound recordings made from those works. The right
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 9 of 43
`
`to publicly perform a musical work—which includes not only live performances but also
`
`broadcasting and digitally streaming to customers—is among a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106(4). Accordingly, radio and television broadcasters, music streaming services, and
`
`brick-and-mortar businesses such as concert venues, bars, and restaurants, must, in most instances,
`
`acquire public performance rights licenses covering the musical works that they provide to
`
`listeners and customers. Id. Such licenses are typically secured from PROs, which aggregate and
`
`license public performance rights for musical works on behalf of music publishers and songwriters
`
`who own the copyrights. See BMI v. DMX Inc., 683 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 2012).1 The PROs assist
`
`rightsholders by monitoring the performance of their works, assuring that users pay for those
`
`performances and by distributing royalties to the rightholders. Meredith Corp. v. SESAC LLC, 1
`
`F. Supp. 3d 180, 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
`
`The two largest U.S. PROs, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
`
`(“ASCAP”) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), license the rights to publicly perform millions of
`
`musical works, including many popular musical works, written by hundreds of thousands of
`
`composers. BMI, 683 F.3d at 36 (“Each [of ASCAP and BMI] represent hundreds of thousands
`
`of songwriters, composers, and publishers who hold copyrights in millions of musical works. . . .
`
`Together, ASCAP and BMI license the music performance rights to most domestic copyrighted
`
`music in the United States.”). Both of these PROs are subject to consent decrees entered into with
`
`the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Complaint ¶ 156. In addition to these regulated PROs,
`
`
`1 Streaming recorded music implicates two separate copyrights: a copyright in the sound
`recording, and a copyright in the underlying musical work embodied in the recording, comprised
`of the underlying lyrics and musical notes. 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2, 7), 106(6). Sound recording
`copyrights are typically owned by record labels and recording artists, while musical work
`copyrights are typically owned by music publishers and songwriters.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 10 of 43
`
`there are two unregulated U.S. PROs: SESAC, LLC (“SESAC”), which has a substantial catalog
`
`of musical works written by “high-profile composers,” Meredith Corp., 1 F. Supp. 3d at 191, and
`
`Global Music Rights (“GMR”), a newer PRO formed in 2014, which has a repertory that includes
`
`“musical works of name-brand artists and popular musical works.” Complaint ¶ 165.
`
`II. The Defendants and Their Use of Musical Works
`
`The moving Defendants, broadly speaking, fall into two categories: (1) those that actually
`
`perform (or allow their users to perform) musical works, and (2) those that do not themselves
`
`perform music, but represent entities that do. Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`(“Amazon”), Google LLC (“Google”) and its subsidiary YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”), Spotify
`
`USA Inc. (“Spotify”), Deezer Inc. (“Deezer”), Pandora Media, LLC (“Pandora”), and SoundCloud
`
`Inc. (“SoundCloud”) fall into the first group. The Complaint refers to these entities as the
`
`“Streaming Defendants.” Id. ¶ 140.2 They each operate streaming services through which their
`
`users can listen to music. Complaint ¶¶ 29, 36, 43, 50, 60, 97, 115, 130.
`
`The remaining moving Defendants—the National Association of American Wineries
`
`(“WineAmerica”), the National Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee (“NRBMLC”),
`
`the Digital Media Association (“DiMA”), and the Television Music License Committee, LLC
`
`(“TVMLC”) (collectively, the “Group Defendants”)—fall into the second category. TVMLC
`
`
`2 The Complaint also names as Defendants Spotify AB, Spotify Limited, Spotify
`Technology S.A., Deezer, S.A., Connoisseur Media, LLC, and SoundCloud Limited, but PMR has
`provided nothing to suggest that any of them has been served or was otherwise involved in any
`alleged scheme. While the Complaint improperly lumps entities together, Deezer, S.A. is actually
`the operator of the streaming service, while Deezer Inc. provides some marketing support to
`Deezer S.A. Relatedly, SoundCloud Inc. (which was served) does not, in fact, even operate a
`streaming service—rather, it provides research and development support to SoundCloud Limited.
`For purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, though, SoundCloud Inc. accepts PMR’s otherwise
`incorrect position that SoundCloud Inc. operates SoundCloud’s streaming service.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 11 of 43
`
`represents certain television station broadcasters in negotiations with various PROs. Id. ¶¶ 77-78.
`
`The NRBMLC represents certain religious-formatted radio broadcasters in negotiations with
`
`various PROs—a genre of music that the Complaint does not allege that PMR licenses. Id. ¶¶ 24,
`
`70-71, 219. These two Group Defendants aim to minimize transaction costs by allowing for a
`
`single negotiation that covers hundreds of licensees, to the benefit of the PROs and the entities the
`
`Group Defendants represent. Cf. id. ¶¶ 68-83.3
`
`The Streaming Defendants and the entities represented by the Group Defendants obtain
`
`public performance rights licenses covering only the musical works they actually (or reasonably
`
`might expect to) perform—there is no need to secure performance rights licenses for works that
`
`will not be played. Id. ¶ 150. These entities typically secure many, if not all, of the rights needed
`
`for the public performance of musical works by obtaining blanket licenses from PROs.4 Id. ¶¶ 152-
`
`53. As a practical matter, virtually every significant licensee of public performance rights for
`
`musical works (including the Streaming Defendants and many of the entities represented by the
`
`Group Defendants) requires a license from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, and many also require a
`
`license from GMR. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 34, 164. This is at least in part because, as the Supreme Court
`
`has recognized, it is impractical, and in many cases impossible, for these licensees to secure all of
`
`the rights they need directly from the actual copyright holders—the songwriters and music
`
`publishers. BMI v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1, 20 (1979). In addition, each of these PROs has a repertory
`
`
`3 DiMA and Wine America do not negotiate musical works public performance rights licenses
`for their members or represent their members in such license negotiations. Similarly, as reflected
`in the authorization forms that PMR cites in its Complaint, TVMLC and NRBMLC do not have
`standing authority to negotiate with PROs on behalf of any stations and instead must obtain each
`station’s authorization to negotiate on its behalf with respect to a particular PRO. Complaint ¶¶
`203, 220.
`4 Some of these entities also secure some, but not all, musical works performance rights
`directly from composers and music publishers.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 12 of 43
`
`containing a large quantity of performance rights, including those to many popular musical works
`
`and the repertories of each of these PROs may not overlap (i.e., an ASCAP license may not cover
`
`the works in the BMI, SESAC, or GMR repertories). See, e.g., Meredith Corp., 1 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`188, 218; Complaint ¶ 165.
`
`III.
`
`PMR, Its Litigation History, and Its Current Claims Against the Defendants
`
`Plaintiff PMR refers to itself as the “fifth-ever” U.S. PRO. Complaint ¶¶ 23-24. In the
`
`two-and-a-half years since its founding, PMR claims to have amassed a catalog of music
`
`amounting to approximately 7.4% “of the public performance rights in the United States based on
`
`the number of works in its repertory.” Id. ¶ 24. This claim is dubious.5 But, even if true, quantity
`
`does not always equate to popularity, and in this case, it certainly does not.
`
`The Complaint states that PMR’s repertory “include[s] works by notable artists” (id. ¶ 24),
`
`but it contains no allegation that PMR has the right to license (exclusively or otherwise) public
`
`performance rights in any musical works that any Defendant actually wants—let alone needs—to
`
`perform. Indeed, there is only one work identified in the Complaint as having had any success at
`
`all—the musical work embedded in the recording “U Guessed It” performed by OG Maco. Id.
`
`According to the Complaint, this recording “went viral and peaked at number 90 on the U.S.
`
`Billboard Hot 100.” Id. At best, PMR alleges the temporary success of one sound recording and
`
`one artist, all in 2014, four years before PMR launched. The Complaint does not actually allege
`
`that the musical work embedded in this recording is in PMR’s repertory. And that is for good
`
`
`5 PMR’s founder, Jake Noch, the copyright holder to most of the works in PMR’s repertory,
`still a BMI affiliate.
` His works are all
`licensed by BMI, not PMR.
`is
`https://repertoire.bmi.com/Catalog.aspx?detail=writerid&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyi
`d=550443800&subid=0 (last accessed August 6, 2020).
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 13 of 43
`
`reason—it is not. That musical work is licensed by ASCAP.6 As a result, every Streaming
`
`Defendant and every entity represented by the Group Defendants that wants to perform the musical
`
`work embedded in this recording already can, as they all have licenses from ASCAP allowing
`
`them to do so. Id. ¶¶ 34, 41, 48, 55, 65, 77, 102, 120, 135, 182, 202, 217.
`
`Instead of assembling a repertory that potential licensees might want, PMR has opted to
`
`pursue a different path—becoming a serial litigant. Over the last nine months, PMR has
`
`commenced twelve different lawsuits in an effort to coerce entities that publicly perform music
`
`into taking licenses they do not need or want on terms that in no way reflect the extremely limited
`
`(if any) value that a PMR license provides. Id. ¶¶ 7, 10.b.
`
`PMR began by suing Spotify in November 2019, initially bringing claims for unfair
`
`competition, deceptive trade practices, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and copyright
`
`infringement. Pro Music Rights LLC v. Spotify AB, No. 2:19-cv-00843, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3-7, 187-
`
`231 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2019). PMR eventually dropped its copyright-infringement claim and
`
`withdrew as a plaintiff altogether. Sosa Entm’t LLC v. Spotify AB, No. 2:19-cv-00843, ECF No.
`
`27 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020).7
`
`In December 2019, PMR filed ten separate copyright infringement lawsuits against
`
`SoundCloud, Rhapsody International, Inc., 7Digital, Inc., Google, YouTube, Apple, Amazon,
`
`Deezer, iHeartMedia, Inc., and Pandora, each of which was initially named as a Defendant in this
`
`
`6 ASCAP, ACE repertory, U Guessed It, available at https://bit.ly/30tyzoK (last accessed
`August 6, 2020).
`7 Spotify filed its own affirmative claims in that case to expose a multi-year fraudulent
`scheme through which PMR’s founder and his affiliated record label used millions of fake Spotify
`accounts to artificially stream their content hundreds of millions of times on Spotify’s platform in
`an attempt to extract unwarranted royalty payments. Sosa Entm’t LLC v. Spotify AB, No. 2:19-cv-
`00843, ECF No. 52, First Amended Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (M.D. Fla. Nov. 25,
`2019). Spotify’s claims remain pending.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00309-JAM Document 147 Filed 08/07/20 Page 14 of 43
`
`case. Complaint ¶ 7. Tacitly acknowledging these lawsuits had no merit, PMR unilaterally
`
`dropped them in March 2020, three months after filing them and just after bringing this lawsuit.8
`
`See, e.g., Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Pro Music Rights,
`
`LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 19-cv-11613, ECF No. 16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020).
`
`PMR now pivots and alleges violations of the antitrust laws, implausibly asserting that a
`
`diverse group of digital streaming services, local television and radio stations, and even wineries
`
`conspired to eliminate PMR from the marketplace. Specifically, PMR alleges that the Defendants
`
`have conspired “to boycott PMR and to set the price for a License at infracompetitive levels” in
`
`violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Connecticut state law. Complaint ¶ 4. PMR also
`
`claims that the alleged “Cartel” has “conspired for the anticompetitive purpose of obtaining
`
`unlawful monopsony power within the performing rights market” and has “monopsonized and
`
`attempted to monopsonize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Id. ¶ 322. As a rationale
`
`for this alleged conspiracy, PMR speculates that Defendants seek to thwart newer PROs, which
`
`are not governed by the decades-old consent decrees that restrain ASCAP and BMI from fully
`
`exploiting their market power. Id. ¶¶ 10(a), 245-46; see BMI v. CBS, 441 U.S. at 11-12.
`
`PMR offers next to nothing to support these claims. Indeed, in its 108-page Complaint,
`
`the only non-conclusory factual allegations it offers are the following:
`
` No Defendant has meaningfully negotiated or entered into a license with PMR.
`See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 5, 227-229, 233-235, 303, 311.