Spotify has successfully concluded a protracted legal battle that began when Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, accused the streaming giant of improperly distributing the artist’s music. The lawsuit, initiated in 2019, claimed that Spotify did not secure the appropriate licences to stream Eminem’s songs.
Spotify Not Liable for Eminem Royalties
Eight Mile Style, Eminem’s publisher, filed a lawsuit seeking approximately £30m, alleging that the artist had not received full compensation for hits such as Lose Yourself and Without Me, which had amassed billions of streams on Spotify. Despite determining that Spotify lacked the proper licence for streaming the tracks, a Tennessee judge ruled that the company is not responsible for the unpaid royalties.
The ruling also indicated that if copyright infringement were established, Kobalt Music Group, which handled royalty collection for Eight Mile Style, would be liable for any penalties. This case highlights the growing complexity of managing music rights in the streaming age.
Eminem’s Publisher Accuses Spotify of Misleading Licensing Claims
When Eight Mile Style initiated legal action against Spotify in 2019, they claimed the company “misled” by falsely asserting it had licences for 243 of Eminem’s songs, despite lacking them. Additionally, the publisher accused Spotify of issuing “arbitrary payments” for tracks that had been streamed hundreds of millions of times, with the payments representing only “a small portion” of the streams. Interestingly, Eminem was not involved in the lawsuit and only learned of it after it had been filed. “We were as surprised as anyone,” his publicist told The Verge at the time.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, Eminem’s music remained available on Spotify throughout the five years. Currently, he ranks as the platform’s 12th most-streamed artist, with 76 million monthly listeners.
Spotify Shifts Blame to Kobalt Music
In 2020, Spotify responded to the lawsuit by shifting blame to Kobalt Music Publishing, a firm responsible for managing the rights to hundreds of thousands of songs and handling royalty payments for rights-holders. According to court filings, Spotify claimed that Kobalt had falsely led them to believe it had control over the administration of Eight Mile’s catalogue, which was not the case.
Spotify also argued that Eight Mile Style had never raised concerns about the platform’s authority to stream Eminem’s tracks, despite having accepted royalty payments from the company since its U.S. debut in 2011. Spotify further contended that Eight Mile’s assertion of being misled into thinking the songs were properly licensed was illogical, especially given their ongoing acceptance of payments while remaining silent for years.
Eight Mile dismissed Spotify’s claims as unfounded, leading to years of legal back-and-forth as both sides debated the case’s intricacies. At one stage, the proceedings were delayed by a disagreement over whether Spotify’s CEO, Daniel Ek, would be required to give a deposition. Although the judge ruled that he would need to testify, the parties ultimately sought a summary judgement, aiming to resolve the case without proceeding to a full trial.
Judge Rules Spotify Not Liable, Criticises Eight Mile Style’s Licensing Management
On 15 August, Judge Aleta A. Trauger issued her ruling, stating that Spotify should not be held responsible for any financial damages. She pointed out that while Kobalt had the authority to collect royalties for Eminem’s music, it did not have the rights to licence his songs in the U.S. and Canada. Those licensing rights had been transferred to Bridgeport Music in 2009, a company connected to Eight Mile Style.
However, Judge Trauger noted that Bridgeport Music had never formally informed any third party that it was now handling Eminem’s music licensing. The judge described this as “inexplicable,” suggesting that it might have been a “strategic” move by Eight Mile Style to pursue compensation from Spotify by alleging copyright violations. She further emphasised that Eight Mile had never sent Spotify a “cease-and-desist letter,” and dismissed the company’s portrayal of itself as a “helpless victim.”
Kobalt to Cover Legal Costs
Judge Aleta A. Trauger criticised Eight Mile Style, stating that the publisher had ample opportunities to resolve the licensing issues but opted not to, likely because claiming infringement offered greater financial benefits than acting as a standard licensor. The judge also highlighted that Spotify’s agreement with Kobalt lacked a detailed catalogue specifying which songs could or could not be streamed. Kobalt had justified this by explaining that its large and constantly changing catalogue made maintaining such a list impractical.
This practice, the judge noted, made it plausible that Spotify could genuinely be uncertain about the rights it held at times. However, the judge pointed out that one aspect of Spotify’s contract with Kobalt was clear: it shielded Spotify from copyright disputes involving works “administered” by Kobalt. As a result, Kobalt will be responsible for covering the legal fees accumulated over the course of the five-year case, which could amount to a significant sum.
