U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson has ordered a jury trial to determine if Pandora's free tier qualifies as an interactive streaming service. The decision follows the judge's refusal to grant summary judgment due to the overwhelming amount of evidence provided by the litigants.
The 7 ,000-page paper trail that forced a jury trial
Judge Eli Richardson of the Nashville federal court took the unusual step of bypassing the summary judgment phase, citing a "corpulent" collection of evidence. According to the report from Billboard, the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) and Pandora submitted 263 documents totaling more than 7,000 pages. Typically, a judge reviews such evidence to see if a trial is even necessary; however, Judge Richardson argued that the sheer volume of documentation suggested that a jury's intervention was unavoidable.
In his order, Judge Richardson noted that if a party must rely on thousands of pages to argue that there is "nothing to see here," it logically follows that there is indeed something for a jury to examine. This procedural move prevents either the MLC or Pandora from winning the case immediately on legal technicalities, pushing the dispute toward a full factual examination in court.
How "Sponsored Premium Access" blurred the interactive line
The core of the legal fight rests on whether Pandora Free operates as a "noninteractive" radio-style service or an "interactive" platform like Spotify. as Billboard reported, the MLC alleges that Pandora Free crossed this threshold by introducing "Sponsored Premium Access" sessions. These sessions allow users to play specific, on-demand songs in exchange for watching advertisements, a feature the MLC claims transforms the service into an interactive one .
This distinction is financially critical because interactive services are required to pay significantly higher royalty rates to songwriters and publishers.. While Pandora pays interactive rates for its paid premium tier, the company maintains that its free, radio-like product remains noninteractive... Pandora has characterized the MLC's claims as "plainly and unmistakably wrong," arguing that the organization is overstepping its legal mandate.
The MLC's broader campaign against Spotify and Pandora
The litigation against Pandora is not an isolated event but part of a wider effort by the Mechanical Licensing Collective to tighten royalty enforcement. The MLC has previously targeted Spotify in a 2024 lawsuit, alleging that the streaming giant unfairly slashed mechanical royalties by bundling music with audiobooks. This pattern suggests the MLC is aggressively testing the boundaries of the compulsory blanket license it administers.
By challenging the classification of "noninteractive" services and the practice of bundling, the MLC is attempting to redefine the financial obligations of digital service providers. If the court rules against Pandora, it could create a precedent that forces other "radio-style" apps to pay higher rates if they offer any form of on-demand access, even if gated by advertising.
Will a settlement preempt Judge Richardson's final ruling?
Despite the order for a trial, several critical unknowns remain. First, a specific trial date has not yet been scheduled by the Nashville federal court, leaving a window open for the MLC and Pandora to reach a private settlement. Second, the court has yet to rule on Pandora's claim that the MLC is "abusing" its powers by bringing unconstitutional legal claims that exceed its statutory duties.
Furthermore, the source only provides the public stances of the two parties; it remains unclear how much the MLC is willing to compromise or if they view a definitive court ruling as more valuable than a settlement. The outcome will likely hinge on whether a jury views a few ad-supported on-demand songs as a fundamental change in the service's nature or a negligible feature.
Comments 0