Skip to content

Pandora controversies

Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.

Back to profile3 entries

  1. 2021

    SiriusXM sued over podcast accessibility

    Lawsuit filed

    The National Association of the Deaf and Disability Rights Advocates filed a lawsuit against SiriusXM, including its Pandora and Stitcher brands, alleging that the services excluded deaf and hard-of-hearing people by not providing captions or transcripts for podcasts. The suit seeks damages and an injunction requiring transcripts.

    Source excerpt

    • The suit demands both damages and an injunction to force SiriusXM to offer podcast transcripts.
  2. 2019

    Appeals court revives Pandora's challenge to recordings lawsuit

    Ruling

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instructed a lower federal court to reconsider Pandora's attempt to defeat a class-action lawsuit concerning the streaming of pre-1972 recordings. According to the report, the appellate court held that the Music Modernization Act preempts state-based claims if Pandora pays the royalties. The report also noted earlier court rulings that Pandora had violated laws in several states.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals told a lower federal court to reconsider Pandora's bid to negate a class-action lawsuit over streaming pre-1972 recordings. The article reports that the appellate court said the Music Modernization Act preempts state-based claims if Pandora pays the royalties; it also notes earlier court rulings that Pandora had violated laws in several states.

    Source excerpt

    • Last week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals told a lower federal court to reconsider Pandora's bid to negate a class-action lawsuit over the streaming of pre-1972 recordings.
    • Last week the appellate court ruled that the MMA preempts state-based claims if Pandora pays the royalties.
  3. 2003

    Deferred-pay lawsuit by former employees

    Former employees sued Savage Beast Technologies over deferred salaries, alleging that the unpaid compensation arrangement violated California wage law. The dispute was settled.