{"id":2118410,"date":"2025-10-27T14:15:14","date_gmt":"2025-10-27T14:15:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/?p=2118410"},"modified":"2025-10-27T14:15:14","modified_gmt":"2025-10-27T14:15:14","slug":"spotify-hits-back-at-mlc-in-latest-filing-in-their-legal-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/spotify-hits-back-at-mlc-in-latest-filing-in-their-legal-battle\/","title":{"rendered":"Spotify hits back at MLC in latest filing in their legal battle"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t
\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\n

In January, Spotify\u00a0won a ruling to dismiss the lawsuit filed against it in the US<\/a>\u00a0by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) over its \u2018bundle\u2019 royalties. However, the MLC\u00a0won the right to amend and refile its complaint<\/a>, which it did earlier this month. Now Spotify has\u00a0filed its response to that complaint<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is plenty of spiky language attacking the MLC\u2019s case \u2013\u00a0which focuses on the fact that as a \u2018bundle\u2019 of music and other services, Spotify pays lower mechanical royalties than it would as a pure music DSP. The filing also asserts that \u201cdespite public statements by MLC and publisher representatives to the contrary, MLC\u2019s remaining claims would not result in any dramatic increase in royalty payments to songwriters and publishers, even if MLC were correct about its present legal theories (which it is not)\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note, Spotify has disclosed exactly how much of an increase there would be in its quarterly financial filings since the lawsuit was first filed. \u201cIf the MLC were to appeal and ultimately be entirely successful in its case, the additional royalties that would be due in relation to the period March 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 would be approximately \u20ac256 million,\u201d\u00a0explained its Q2 filing<\/a>.<\/p>\n