This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Legal
Carly Simon resubmits Starbucks litigation
By CMU Editorial | Published on Tuesday 1 June 2010
Carly Simon is having another shot at suing Starbucks over her short-lived business partnership with the coffee firm’s short-lived record label Hear Music.
As previously reported, Simon signed up to the Starbucks music venture – which had previously released Paul McCartney’s 2007 album ‘Memory Almost Full’ – in 2008, and they released her album ‘This Kind Of Love’. But just as her long player was being unleashed on the world, Starbucks decided to end its dabblings in the record industry which, she argues, meant they failed to market the album. She sued late last year, also claiming she was misled by Starbucks executives regarding their plans for their music venture when signing her deal with the company.
But a judge dismissed the lawsuit in April, saying Starbucks had no contractual obligations regarding marketing, and that there was no evidence Simon was actually misled by management at the company. But the judge said the singer was welcome to resubmit her lawsuit if she believed she had such evidence. And it was revealed yesterday that she has done just that. She also seems to suggest Starbucks made verbal commitments regarding the marketing of the album.
According to Reuters, Simon now alleges that Starbucks’ VP Of Content Development Alan Mintz gave her verbal assurances, by phone and in person, that his company was committed to fully marketing and distributing her record. But, according to WENN, Starbucks have said that whatever new evidence Simon now has, her contract specifically excluded the coffee company from liability for any failings of its music offshoot Hear Music, so, they say, her legal claim is still invalid.