Six words, no verdict, five years

December 12, 2022. A federal judge in Los Angeles signs a one-page order. No jury, no trial, no closing arguments. The case is dismissed, in its entirety and with prejudice, and each side bears its own attorney's fees and costs.

It took five years to write that page.

The lawsuit arrived in September 2017, when songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler accused Taylor Swift of lifting six words from their 2001 song "Playas Gon' Play" for her 2014 hit "Shake It Off." The district court threw it out. The Ninth Circuit revived it. The district court then refused to kill it twice more.

Five years of federal litigation over a six-word phrase and a four-part lyrical sequence. Demand: unspecified. Paid: undisclosed — the dismissal order says only that each side bears its own fees and costs.

What the papers say

September 18, 2017: the complaint names Taylor Swift, Karl Martin Sandberg (pka Max Martin), and Karl Johan Schuster (pka Shellback), plus Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Big Machine Label Group, and Universal Music Group. The plaintiffs: Sean Hall, d.b.a. Gimme Some Hot Sauce Music, and Nathan Butler, d.b.a. Faith Force Music, the co-authors of "Playas Gon' Play," recorded by the girl group 3LW.

The claim: "Shake It Off" (2014) copies the phrase "Playas, they gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate" as "'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play / And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate." It continues into a four-part sequence of actors engaging in activities: ballers and shot callers on the plaintiffs' side, heartbreakers and fakers on Swift's. The complaint says the copied material accounts for roughly 20% of "Shake It Off."

The record's best detail: the plaintiffs allege their combination was "completely original and unique." They also allege Swift admitted she watched MTV's TRL, the show that promoted "Playas Gon' Play" when it debuted at No. 7 on March 7, 2001. Access, in other words, came with the territory of a hit.

The money

The prayer for relief asks for "damages in such amount as may be found, or as otherwise permitted by law," plus maximum statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. 504(c), actual damages and profits under 504(b), attorney's fees under 505, an injunction, and the destruction of copies.

No number. The complaint leaves the amount to a jury. The case never got one. On December 12, 2022, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald dismissed the action "in its entirety and with prejudice," with "Plaintiffs and Defendants to bear their respective attorney's fees and costs."

Scorecard: demand unspecified, no damages awarded by any court, fees unrecovered. No document in the file publishes anyone's legal bills, so I will not invent a number. What the docket shows is five years of motion practice, a full appeal, and a summary judgment fight.

The ruling

The Ninth Circuit's holding is short. The amended memorandum says the district court dismissed for lack of originality, then corrects it: "Hall's complaint still plausibly alleged originality."

Translation: at the pleading stage, the question is whether the complaint plausibly alleges originality, not something a judge decides on a 12(b)(6) motion. The bar is plausibility, and the complaint cleared it. The court reversed.

On remand, the district court twice more declined. In September 2020, it denied the renewed motion to dismiss, holding the merger doctrine could not be decided from the complaint alone and the plaintiffs had "sufficiently alleged a protectable selection and arrangement or a sequence of creative expression." In December 2021, it denied summary judgment: "Although Defendants have made a strong closing argument for a jury, they have not shown that there are no genuine issues of triable fact."

Swift won the first bid to end the case early — the initial motion to dismiss was granted, then reversed on appeal — and lost the next two. It ended anyway: by agreement, with prejudice.

The risk ledger

About five years. That is how long this ran.

Swift's co-writers, Max Martin and Shellback, were named defendants alongside her, plus four companies: Sony/ATV, Kobalt, Big Machine, and UMG. The defense retained an NYU musicology professor and a linguistics professor as experts. The docket holds two 12(b)(6) motions, a Ninth Circuit appeal, and a summary judgment fight.

No damages were awarded by any court, and the dismissal order does not disclose whether money changed hands. Everyone paid lawyers, and the record will not tell you how much. The December 2022 order is the whole story on costs: each side bears its own.

The meter runs whether you win or lose. Sit with that.

The coverage lens

This is the exact class of allegation that media liability coverage is built for: someone says your creative work infringes their rights, and you need defense counsel before you need anything else. Defense costs are a central part of what the coverage line addresses, and the defense bill is the certain bill in every case like this one. It arrives for winners and losers alike, and it arrives years before anyone knows who won.

No promises here. Whether any particular claim would be covered depends on the policy as issued, its terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions, and the facts of the claim. But the category exists because of cases like this.

The docket

• Complaint (Doc 1, filed September 18, 2017), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:17-cv-06882: ipwatchdog.com
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, amended memorandum disposition, No. 18-55426, 786 F. App'x 711 (filed October 28, 2019; amended December 5, 2019): copyrightlately.com
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, order denying motion to dismiss on remand (September 2, 2020), 2020 WL 5358390: fingfx.thomsonreuters.com
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc 104, filed December 9, 2021): law.justia.com
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, defendants' memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment (Doc 92-1, filed July 19, 2021): fingfx.thomsonreuters.com
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, order dismissing action with prejudice (Doc 162, filed December 12, 2022): digitalmusicnews.com

Sources

• Complaint (Doc. 1, filed September 18, 2017), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:17-cv-06882: ipwatchdog.com
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, amended memorandum disposition, No. 18-55426, 786 F. App'x 711: copyrightlately.com
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 104, filed December 9, 2021): law.justia.com
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, order dismissing action with prejudice (Doc. 162, filed December 12, 2022): digitalmusicnews.com

The complaint, the Ninth Circuit memorandum, and the dismissal order are hosted on media sites rather than court hosts; they are authentic court filings reproduced by those publishers. The dismissal order addresses only fees and costs and is silent on whether any money changed hands — the 'no damages were awarded' statements in this article are the provable claims.

Legal disclosure

SongSure LLC is an insurance agency. This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal advice, not insurance advice, and not an offer, quote, or promise of coverage. Case summaries are based on publicly available court records and are simplified; they may omit details. Any coverage would be subject to underwriting review, carrier approval, and the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the policy as issued. Past case outcomes do not predict future results or coverage decisions. SongSure is in pre-launch and is not currently writing coverage. Consult a licensed attorney for legal questions and a licensed insurance producer for coverage questions.