Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued her report and recommendation regarding the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) against performing rights organization (PRO) SESAC, Inc., seeking to prevent SESAC from instituting a rate increase during the pendency of the RMLC’s antitrust suit against SESAC for violations of Secs. 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. While Mag. Judge Sitarski denied the RMLC’s motion, the RMLC is probably still thrilled with her R&R.
I described here the antitrust suit filed by the local television broadcasters against SESAC for antitrust violations. That suit was filed in the Southern District of New York and has SESAC’s motion for summary judgment pending. A companions case was filed by the RMLC in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In that case, the RMLC sued SESAC for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, Section 1 claim, “an antitrust plaintiff must plead the following two elements: (1) that the defendant was a party to a contract, combination … or conspiracy and (2) that the conspiracy to which the defendant was a party imposed an unreasonable restraint on trade.” Section 2 of the Sherman Act by using “de facto exclusive contracting practices to create a market artificially insulated from competition.” “Liability under section 2 requires: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”
When SESAC sought to increase the royalty rate applicable to RMLC member stations for CY 2014, the RMLC filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the rate increase. Ultimately, Judge Sitarsky concluded that remedies in the form of monetary damages could make the RMLC whole (if the RMLC is successful at trial) and denied the motion for an injunction. In reaching her decision, however, Judge Sitarsky indicated she thinks the RMLC has established a prima facie case of a likelihood of success on the merits.
A key part of her reasoning was the inability of RMLC-member stations to license around SESAC because the exact scope of SESAC’s repertoire is unknown (some might say ‘hidden’). This opacity around catalog information is important for at least two reasons. First, not knowing what is within and without the SESAC repertoire impact Judge Sitarsky’s analysis of the applicable ‘market’ against which the RMLC’s antitrust allegations will be directed.
According to Judge Sitarsky:
The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” Queen City Pizza v. Domino’s Pizza, 124 F.3d 430, 436 (3d. Cir. 1997) (cited cases omitted). Interchangeability implies that one product is roughly equivalent to another for the use to which it is put. Id. When assessing reasonable interchangeability, factors to be considered include price, use, and qualities. Id.. Reasonable interchangeability is usually present when there is “cross-elasticity of demand” between the product itself and the substitutes for it. Cross-elasticity of demand is present when the rise in the price of a good would cause the demand for substitutable goods to increase.
Because stations “cannot substitute non-SESAC performance rights for SESAC performance rights if SESAC charges above-competitive license fees,” Judge Sitarsky concluded that the “RMLC has produced sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing that the relevant product market is the market for SESAC’s blanket license.”
This lack of transparency is also important to the court’s determination that direct licensing was an option for RMLC-member stations. For example, Judge Sitarsky differentiated the SESAC case from the case involving CBS’ antitrust claims against ASCAP and BMI of the 1970s and 80s.
The instant case is distinguishable from CBS I because the SESAC blanket license is the sole source of the performance rights that radio stations need. This is because radio stations are unable to obtain a bundle of direct licenses acquired on an individual transaction basis for the music in SESAC’s repertory because they cannot determine what such a bundle would entail. That is: only SESAC knows each and every song that comprises its repertory.
the inability of radio stations to conclusively determine what songs are SESAC songs precludes them from obtaining individual licenses from the composers, and foregoing a SESAC license. In other words, a SESAC blanket license is not reasonably interchangeable with a bundle of direct licenses permitting the use of SESAC’s repertory because the individual songs in SESAC’s repertory cannot be conclusively determined. While SESAC permits direct licensing by its affiliates, it is the entire bundle that a radio station needs to avoid infringement, and what constitutes the entire bundle is unknown.
Because the access to direct licenses was a key determination in the US Supreme Court that the ASCAP and BMI blanket licenses weren’t antitrust violations, this conclusion of Judge Sitarsky, if adopted by the District Judge, could have significant impact on whether SESAC’s blanket license can survive antitrust scrutiny.
Judge Sitarsky’s report and recommendation is here.