Warner Music UK Limited & Anor v Tunein Inc

Warner Music UK Limited & Anor v Tunein Inc

The Court held that Issues 2A and 2B (comparable licences) are proper Issues for Disclosure given the dispute on the appropriate basis for damages, but TuneIn’s Model C requests are too wide and unfocused. The Claimants are not required to disclose all potentially comparable licences at this stage, nor to conduct...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Warner Music UK Limited; Claimant: Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited; Defendant: TuneIn, Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Damages Inquiry / Second Case Management Conference (cmc) Interlocutory Judgment on Disclosure
Outcome
Interlocutory orders on disclosure; no final disposition on damages or liability.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Damages Inquiry, Disclosure, Comparable Licences, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Damages Inquiry Disclosure Comparable Licences Case Management

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warner Music UK Limited

Claimant

Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited

Claimant

TuneIn, Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Damages Inquiry / Second Case Management Conference (cmc) Interlocutory Judgment on Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants must disclose comparable licences beyond PPL webcaster licences
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants have 'control' over PPL documents for disclosure purposes
  3. 3 The appropriate scope and proportionality of disclosure under Model C requests

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Issues 2A and 2B (comparable licences) are proper Issues for Disclosure given the dispute on the appropriate basis for damages, but TuneIn’s Model C requests are too wide and unfocused. The Claimants are not required to disclose all potentially comparable licences at this stage, nor to conduct disproportionate searches. The parties must liaise to agree focused, clear, and proportionate Model C requests. Disclosure of PPL documents is premature absent evidence of control. Disclosure by TuneIn is limited to specified internal databases, not just UK listening activity. The Claimants’ disclosure is limited to a list of stations licensed for the UK, not all underlying...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders on disclosure; no final disposition on damages or liability.

Orders

  • TuneIn’s disclosure under Issue 1 limited to data from MySQL and Redshift databases, not limited to UK listening activity.
  • Claimants to provide a list of stations licensed for the UK under requests (1)-(3); no obligation to disclose all underlying agreements or royalty reports.