Judge Rules in Favor of Mariah Carey in Copyright Dispute

LOS ANGELES – A significant legal ruling has come from Los Angeles, where a federal judge determined that Mariah Carey did not infringe on copyright with her beloved holiday hit, “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” The decision, made by Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani, allows Carey and her co-writer, Walter Afanasieff, to bypass a trial with a summary judgment in their favor.

Background of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit originated in 2023 when songwriters Andy Stone, known as Vince Vance, and Troy Powers filed a $20 million claim. They alleged that Carey’s 1994 festive anthem unlawfully copied elements from their track, which shares the same title and was released in 1989. They contended that their song features a unique narrative about a person longing for love over material gifts during the holiday season.

Arguments Presented

In their claim, Stone and Powers argued that the similarities between the two songs were significant enough to suggest that Carey and Afanasieff had likely been influenced by their work, which had briefly reached No. 31 on Billboard’s Hot Country chart.

Stone and Powers’ attorney, Gerard P. Fox, emphasized the challenge of overcoming summary judgments in copyright cases. He noted that their case was bolstered by the opinions of experienced musicologists. “Judges at this level nearly always dismiss a music copyright case; one must appeal to reverse and get the case to the jury,” he explained.

Judicial Findings

After reviewing expert testimony from both sides, Judge Ramírez Almadani sided with the defense. She concluded that the songs employed common holiday clichés that predate both works and asserted that Carey’s song utilized these elements in a distinct manner. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial similarities between the two compositions.

Consequences for the Plaintiffs

In a further blow to Stone and Powers, the judge ordered sanctions against them and their legal team, labeling their suit as frivolous. She noted that the plaintiffs’ attorneys “made no reasonable effort to ensure that the factual contentions asserted have evidentiary support.” As a result, they are required to cover a portion of the defendants’ attorney fees.

Next Steps

As the dust settles, Fox indicated that his clients would soon decide whether to pursue an appeal. Meanwhile, representatives for Carey have not issued a public response regarding the ruling.

The Source: Details for this article were derived from the Associated Press. Reporting was conducted from Los Angeles.