US Urges SCOTUS to Deny ML Genius’ Cert Petition in Breach-of-Contract Case vs. Google
The U.S. Supreme Court should deny the cert petition of ML Genius to review the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ March 31 decision dismissing its breach-of-contract claim against Google because the Copyright Act preempts the claim, said Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 22-121). SCOTUS invited the solicitor general in December to file a brief expressing the views of the U.S. (see 2212130030), and Prelogar told the court Tuesday that further review isn’t “warranted.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case involves Genius, an online platform for transcribing and annotating song lyrics, and its requirement that visitors agree to its contractual terms as a condition for using its services. Those terms include the promise not to reproduce the contents of Genius’ platform.
Genius alleges Google contractually bound itself to those terms, but in blatant breach of that contract Google “stole Genius’s labors for its own competing commercial purposes.” It alleges Google copied lyrics from Genius’ website and used them in Google’s information boxes. It also alleges Google’s unlawful actions substantially reduced the number of visits to Genius’ website, significantly decreasing its advertising revenue.
Relying on 2nd Circuit precedent, the appeals court "understood" Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act “to be a complete-preemption statute that can provide a basis for federal removal jurisdiction,” said the amicus brief. The appeals court further said Genius’ breach-of-contract claims fall within the subject matter of copyright, it said. Genius argues the contractual nature of the claims it asserts takes those claims outside Section 301(a)’s “preemptive scope,” it said.
Section 301(a) often won’t “preclude the enforcement of private contractual agreements,” including those that impose conditions on a right to use a work, a physical item or documents, said the amicus brief. Genius’ breach-of-contract claims are “atypical,” because access to Genius’ website isn’t conditioned on any “express promise” to abide by Genius’ terms of service, it said. Genius also doesn’t contend Google “made any such express promise here,” it said.
For those reasons and others, this case “would be a poor vehicle for clarifying Section 301(a)’s application to breach-of-contract claims generally,” said the amicus brief. There’s little indication “any other court of appeals would reach a different outcome in this case,” it said. If SCOTUS granted cert, “it would need to resolve the threshold jurisdictional question whether this case was properly removed to federal court based on a complete-preemption theory,” it said: “The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.”