Music Publishers Speed Past Peloton's Counterclaims in Copyright Lawsuit

“Peloton does not explain why it cannot substitute songs with sync licenses owned by the Music Publishers for songs with sync licenses owned by other publishers,” Cote writes. “Indeed, as Peloton admits, it has successfully ‘collaborated with music publishers to develop an innovative [sync] licensing framework that is appropriate for its business and reached agreements with all the ‘major’ music publishers and many independent music publishers.’”

Cote also found that Peloton failed to establish "tortious interference" on the part of the NMPA, noting there was no evidence to suggest the publishers had ever reciprocated Peloton’s interest in finalizing sync agreements prior to the trade organization’s alleged obstruction.

Finally, the judge denied Peloton’s prior request to amend its “relevant market” definition -- in the event the current definition was found to be legally deficient -- to encompass only the publishers at issue.

“Peloton did not explain why its alternative definition of a relevant product market would cure the deficiencies that it anticipated this Court would find with respect to the interchangeability of music suitable for fitness videos,” she concluded, noting that Peloton had ample opportunities to amend the definition prior to today's ruling.

In a statement sent to Billboard, NMPA president and CEO David Israelite applauded the judge's decision. “Today’s victory is a reminder that tech companies like Peloton cannot build businesses that are reliant on songwriters without asking their permission and paying them,” he said. “Judge Cote has dismissed all of Peloton’s counterclaims which were only meant to distract from their failure to license 2468 songs. We are pleased that Peloton’s attempts to divert attention from the heart of the issue – properly paying creators for the music on which its billion-dollar business was built -- have been defeated.”

In their own statement, a Peloton spokesperson said of the decision, “We respectfully disagree with this ruling regarding our counterclaims and are assessing our options for appeal. We will continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff publishers’ infringement claims, which were not addressed in this decision.”

1/30/20: This article has been updated with revised figures regarding the publishers' lawsuit.