MLC Demands Jury Trial in Revived Spotify Lawsuit — Case Management Conference Set for November

Will an amended complaint and a jury trial demand change the trajectory of the MLC’s bundling-focused Spotify lawsuit? We should have an answer sooner rather than later, as the updated action is quickly ramping up.

The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) just recently submitted the amended complaint, which received a green light from the presiding judge late last month. And that green light followed a definitive dismissal closer to 2025’s beginning, when the same judge ruled in favor of Spotify and tossed the suit with prejudice.

Evidently undeterred by the setback, the MLC in April submitted its proposed amended complaint. We previously broke down the differences between the initial version and second iteration, both involving Spotify’s unilateral bundling reclassifications and the compositional royalty fallout thereof.

(The fallout’s taken a bit of a different turn as of late owing to Spotify’s direct deals with Kobalt, BMG, and others. Though positive for the appropriate companies and professionals, the trend, it probably goes without saying, doesn’t mean everyone possesses the sway necessary to command a direct agreement.)

But to recap, the newer legal text accepted Premium’s status as a bundle and placed a greater emphasis on the value Spotify attached to its audiobook-only tier, $9.99 per month, relative to the offering’s actual market value for consumers.

The price factors directly into the formula under which mechanicals are calculated for the now-bundled (referring to the inclusion of music as well as audiobooks) Premium. Perhaps not coincidentally, Spotify kicked off October 2025 with an email “Introducing Audiobooks Access,” which, from the litigation’s perspective, would definitely look better with some subs and marketing under its belt.

“Spotify, a sophisticated marketer that had grown Premium into the largest music streaming service in the world, launched Audiobooks Access with effectively no marketing,” the MLC spelled out in the amended suit.

Additionally, the retooled action accused Spotify of underpaying royalties on the straight audiobooks side owing to the alleged presence of music access through the tier.

“Further,” the MLC penned, “if Premium is properly characterized as a Bundle of music and audiobooks components, as the Court has previously concluded, then so too is Audiobooks Access, meaning that Spotify must report and pay royalties for Audiobooks Access as a Bundled Subscription Offering.”

Last month, the court found that the overhauled suit “states multiple plausible claims” – thereby setting the stage for its October 1st filing. And yesterday, the MLC formally demanded a jury trial in the courtroom confrontation, which will certainly be worth tracking from here.

As for the revived complaint’s next steps, a case management conference is teed up for Monday, November 3rd, and the involved attorneys are expected “to file a proposed discovery schedule in advance of this proceeding.” At the time of writing, said schedule hadn’t made its way into the docket.