The case over Spotify Premium and audiobooks was brought by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), not by subscribers. MLC alleges that Spotify’s treatment of Premium as a bundled subscription reduced the revenue attributed to music when calculating mechanical royalties. A court dismissed MLC’s original theory that Premium did not qualify as a bundle, then allowed the organization to amend its complaint with additional theories. The latest order covered here, dated September 1, 2026, did not decide whether those amended allegations are true.
What the Spotify case is—and what it is not
MLC filed the case on May 16, 2024, under Section 115 of the Copyright Act and related regulations. The dispute concerns how Spotify reports subscription revenue for purposes of calculating mechanical royalties. It is not a lawsuit brought by Spotify subscribers alleging that the company deceived them about audiobook hours, prices, or plan features.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Copyright Law | $148.04 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Copyright Law: Cases and Materials (v8.0) | $21.70 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Copyright Law of the United States: and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code | $10.32 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Copyright Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Copyright Handbook, The: What Every Writer Needs to Know | $37.99 | Buy on Amazon |
MLC’s allegation is that Spotify’s bundle reporting assigns a smaller share of subscription revenue to music, thereby lowering the amount used in mechanical royalty calculations. That remains an allegation in the amended case, not a finding that Spotify underpaid royalties. The court’s rulings on the original complaint addressed a narrower question: whether Premium qualified as a bundle under the governing regulation.
How Premium and Audiobooks Access fit into the dispute
According to MLC’s complaint, Spotify added up to 15 hours of audiobook listening per month to Premium in November 2023. On March 1, 2024, Spotify launched a separate plan called Audiobooks Access. MLC alleged that Spotify then began reporting Premium as a bundled subscription for royalty purposes.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
The timing matters because MLC’s original theory was that Premium did not become a bundle when Audiobooks Access launched: audiobook listening was already included in Premium. The court rejected that theory at the pleading stage, reasoning that Premium combined music streaming with audiobook listening that had more than token value.
Case timeline and what each court action decided
| Date | Event | What it established |
|---|---|---|
| November 2023 | Spotify added up to 15 monthly audiobook-listening hours to Premium, according to MLC’s complaint. | The audiobook benefit was part of Premium before Audiobooks Access launched. |
| March 1, 2024 | Spotify launched Audiobooks Access. | MLC later pointed to the launch in its account of Spotify’s bundle reporting; the launch itself did not prove the royalty allegations. |
| May 16, 2024 | MLC filed suit. | The original complaint challenged Spotify’s treatment of Premium under Section 115 and its regulations. |
| January 2025 | The district court dismissed the original complaint. | The court held that Premium qualified as a bundle because it included music streaming and audiobook listening with more than token value. |
| March 2025 | The court denied reconsideration of its merits ruling but vacated the judgment to let MLC seek permission to bring new theories. | The case could proceed toward additional claims about Audiobooks Access and Spotify’s Premium royalty calculations; permission to pursue them was not a ruling that they were true. |
| September 2025 | The court granted MLC leave to amend. | MLC was allowed to plead the additional theories. |
| September 1, 2026 | The court denied MLC’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the original dismissal and granted Spotify’s motion to strike its unclean-hands defense. | The order did not decide the merits of MLC’s amended royalty claims. |
Why the original bundle ruling matters
The court’s January 2025 decision treated Premium’s combination of music streaming and audiobook listening as a bundle under the applicable regulation. In its September 1, 2026 order, Judge Analisa Torres wrote: “The Court adheres to its opinion that the plain text of § 385.2 leaves no ambiguity as to whether Premium combines ‘one or more products or services’ having ‘more than token value’ with a subscription music streaming service.”
That is the court’s interpretation of the regulation and its ruling on MLC’s original theory. It does not establish that every part of Spotify’s royalty calculations was correct, nor does it resolve the additional theories allowed in the amended complaint. The original dismissal and the amended claims therefore need to be kept separate when describing the case.
What the case means for Spotify subscribers
The plaintiff is MLC, and the legal issue is royalty accounting between music services and rights holders—not whether subscribers were misled about what a plan included. The rulings described here do not determine whether a particular subscriber was charged correctly, whether audiobook access was clearly presented in the app, or whether a subscriber is owed a refund.
Rank #3
Separately, Spotify said that after an app update approved in May 2025, U.S. users could view audiobook prices, buy individual audiobooks, and purchase additional “Top Up” hours beyond Premium’s included 15 monthly hours. That was Spotify’s announcement about the U.S. experience at that time; it does not establish that the same options are currently available to every user or in every market.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Where the case stood in the latest order covered here
The September 1, 2026 order addressed an attempt to appeal the original dismissal before the case was fully resolved and a defense Spotify had raised. It denied the appeal request and struck the unclean-hands defense, but did not decide whether MLC’s amended allegations about Audiobooks Access or Premium royalty calculations were valid. A court order allowing claims to proceed is not a judgment in the claimant’s favor.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
