We broke down that straightforward push closer to the top of 2026, following a definitive win for Spotify in 2025. And as many know, this victory saw the presiding judge agree with Premium’s bundle classification (due to the availability of both music and audiobooks) under Phonorecords IV.

By now, said classification’s far-reaching royalties fallout – “Spotify will owe songwriters potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid royalties” due to the bundling craze, per the MLC – isn’t a secret.

Consequently, it didn’t come as a surprise when the plaintiff, which is still spearheading an adjusted suit against Spotify, moved to bring the central bundling question before an appeals court.

“If the Second Circuit ultimately disagrees with the Order [dismissing the MLC’s initial action], the MLC’s original claims would be reinstated, requiring re-litigation of the case with additional discovery, additional motion practice, and a second trial,” the Mechanical Licensing Collective previously relayed. “Granting interlocutory review now would allow for the full and final resolution of all of the MLC’s claims together, without duplicative proceedings.”

“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,” Judge Torres wrote.

“But, even were the Court to agree with MLC, ‘room for reasonable disagreement’ concerning the Court’s prior holding is not a sufficient reason to depart from the final judgment rule and certify an interlocutory appeal,” the judge continued.

“Allowing parties to pepper the Second Circuit with interlocutory appeals anytime a Court’s order could be ‘reasonably’ disagreed with would pose a significant obstacle to efficient and expedient appellate review.”

“Spotify’s argument fails because, even accepting as true its claim that MLC is selectively enforcing § 115 of the Copyright Act, nothing about that selective enforcement constitutes ‘unconscionable conduct,’” Judge Torres summed up.

With precedent established in a years-old SoundExchange v. Muzak case factoring into the position as well, the court proceeded to reiterate that “Spotify offers no statutory source requiring the MLC to apply § 115 in the same manner and at the same time against all of its competitors.”

As such, Spotify’s selective enforcement defense is no more, and an interlocutory appeal of the bundling determination isn’t in the cards.

Regarding what comes next, discovery appears to be in full swing, and the court in late July agreed to extend the corresponding deadlines into November – albeit while underscoring that “further extensions to this schedule are unlikely to be granted” owing to the suit’s having “now been pending for over 2 years.”