Earlier this month The Department of Justice weighed in on the battle between the radio industry, represented by the RMLC, and Irving Azoff’s Global Music Rights Organization. D.O.J., said the RMLC wrongly argued that GMR’s complaint does not plead price fixing. On Thursday the RMLC fired back.
In an 18-page document, RMLC argues that D.O.J., as an administrative agency, improperly inserted its views into this Federal court proceeding three months late without being asked, and badly misconstrued RMLC’s and GMR’s arguments.
The RMLC said D.O.J’s action is a departure from previous administrations with the current leadership of the Antitrust Division adopting a practice of offering its views on how district courts should address antitrust issues in private cases before them. “Although there may be cases where the Division’s stated interest in assuring that courts apply antitrust law fairly and correctly could assist federal district judges in resolving novel legal issues of first impression, this case has no such issues. It requires only a straightforward application of the uncontroversial binding law of this Circuit to the allegations of GMR’s complaint. There is nothing unique or difficult about that exercise that requires the court to consider the unsolicited views of a federal agency. And the Court does not owe any deference to the Division’s views on either the law or its application to the facts here.”
RMLC factually disputes the DOJ premise that 10,000 radio stations reached an agreement on the price they would pay for GMR’s music. Further RMLC skeptically notes that DOJ appears to be arguing that it is unlawful to propose arbitration in lieu of protracted federal court litigation as a means to resolve a dispute when arbitration is universally recognized as proper.
The RMLC is asking the presiding judge to disregard the DOJ filing and make a decision based upon GMR’s and RMLC’s filings alone that antitrust violations did not occur.
Read the full RMLC response HERE
The concern is that this same DOJ is currently reviewing the consent decrees that apply to ASCAP and BMI. Their comments on this issue show a lack of understanding about the role of the RMLC and its relationship with PROs. As a result, it doesn’t bode well for the review of those consent decrees. The proper action would be for the consent decrees to apply to all PROs including GMR and SESAC. That might alleviate the fairness issue.