A judge says it’ll take too long to review more than 7,000 pages of documents in litigation between Pandora and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), so he’s having a jury decide the fight over streaming royalties.

The MLC, a group created by the Music Modernization Act to apportion mechanical royalties from streaming services, sued Pandora in 2024 for allegedly misclassifying its free tier to avoid paying the higher rates owed by “interactive” platforms like Spotify. The SiriusXM unit denies those claims, and both sides asked a judge earlier this year to enter judgment in their favor. But Judge Eli Richardson in Nashville federal court declined to even consider these requests in an unusual Wednesday (Sept. 30) court order, first obtained and reported by Billboard.

In a typical summary judgment order, a judge weighs all the evidence collected by both sides in discovery and decides whether there are genuine factual questions requiring a jury trial. Judge Richardson didn’t do that here, though, citing the “corpulent” collection of 263 documents totaling more than 7,000 pages cumulatively submitted by the MLC and Pandora.

“The court in its discretion finds that it would be more efficient to deal with all contested issues and examine the fulsome factual record at trial rather than expending the (very substantial) judicial resources necessary to dispose of the motions,” wrote the judge.

Judge Richardson also noted in his order that the “huge volume” of documents in the case suggests to him that a trial would be unavoidable no matter what. “If a summary judgment motion requires so many different pillars of support, there naturally is an increased mathematical likelihood that one of the essential pillars is unsteady,” he wrote. “Or to put it differently, if a party has to file thousands of pages and hundreds of documents to explain why there is nothing for a jury to decide — i.e., to explain that, in today’s parlance, ‘there’s nothing to see here’ — then the volume suggests that there is indeed something for the jury to see.”

A trial date is not currently scheduled. And there’s still the possibility that the MLC and Pandora could reach a settlement instead. In a statement to Billboard, Pandora emphasized that Wednesday’s ruling “was not a determination on the merits of the case.”

“Pandora is committed to compensating songwriters and publishers in accordance with the law, and we remain confident in our position,” added the company.

A spokesperson for the MLC said the group “welcomes” the chance to continue litigating against Pandora.

“The MLC will continue to pursue this action to enforce Pandora’s royalty payment obligations under the statutory license, supported by the substantial evidence that the MLC has compiled,” said the spokesperson. “Congress authorized The MLC to take legal action to enforce the payment obligations of digital services under the compulsory blanket license that The MLC administers, and we remain committed to fulfilling that statutory responsibility.”

The MLC’s lawsuit centers on the distinction between “interactive” streaming platforms like Spotify or Apple Music, which allow users to pick their songs on demand, and “noninteractive” platforms like Pandora that provide an experience more like radio. It’s a key dividing line, since interactive and noninteractive services pay very different royalty rates to songwriters and publishers.

Though Pandora pays interactive royalties for its premium tier with on-demand functionality, it has long treated Pandora Free — the core radio-like product that fueled the company’s rise in the late 2000s — as a noninteractive service, since it largely serves users a mix of songs based on their preferences.

But in its 2024 lawsuit, the MLC alleged that Pandora Free had crossed the line into “interactive” status by offering so-called “Sponsored Premium Access” sessions, which allow users to briefly play specific songs in return for watching ads. The organization sought to hold Pandora liable for what it characterized as an “unlawful underpayment of royalties.”

Pandora has called those claims “plainly and unmistakably wrong.” The company argued in its summary judgment motion that the MLC is “abusing” its powers to bring unconstitutional legal claims that far exceed its one simple job mandated by the law: to collect and distribute mechanical royalties.   

The case was filed just months after Pandora was separately sued by SoundExchange for allegedly underpaying recorded royalties by manipulating how it bundles satellite and web streaming services. A judge threw out that lawsuit last summer after determining that SoundExchange does not have any power to initiate litigation. This finding, which could alter the music industry’s royalty enforcement landscape, is now on appeal.

The MLC, meanwhile, followed up its lawsuit against Pandora by launching another high-profile legal action in 2024 that accused Spotify of bundling music with audiobooks to unfairly slash mechanical royalties. The MLC’s core claims against Spotify were later dismissed, though some additional allegations are still being litigated. Bundling is also now a key issue in the Copyright Royalty Board’s ongoing Phono V rate-setting process.