Limp Bizkit Takes Legal Action Against UMG
LIMP Bitskit and Frontman, Fred Derst, have filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) in California’s state court, following a federal court’s refusal to entertain most of their complaints against the recording company.
The lawsuit was filed on Monday (March 24) in the Los Angeles district, alleging violations of contract, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, deliberate misrepresentation, and fraud by UMG, among other claims.
The group is seeking a declaration from the court that their contracts with UMG are no longer valid, along with damages of no less than 23.45 million dollars plus “special damages,” amounting to at least 10 million dollars.
Details of the Complaint
The lawsuit reiterates many of the same claims that LIMP Bitskit and Derst made in their initial federal filing last October, where they stated they had not received payment despite selling around 45 million albums under contracts established in 1996.
According to the complaint, UMG informed Derst that he and his bandmates had not yet received royalties since the company was still profiting 43 million dollars from various achievements linked to these contracts.
The complaint states that this issue stemmed from a 1996 addendum involving Limp Bizkit and Flip Records, claiming that Derst and the band “never agreed or discussed” the proposed changes, which altered the agreement to require the label to recoup its investments before paying royalties.
Moreover, they believe their original 1990s agreement entitled them to a 50-50 split of profits from music distributed through channels not included in the contract, such as streaming services.
The complaint mentions that Limp Bizkit’s music was streamed 1.7 billion times worldwide in 2024, up from 1.3 billion the previous year.
“Currently, the group sells out arenas and headlines major festivals,” the complaint noted. “Despite this tremendous ‘return,’ the group has yet to receive a single cent in fees from UMG, prompting questions about how this could possibly be true.”
This initial federal lawsuit is now centered on copyright violations. Limp Bizkit asserts that they informed UMG last summer of their cancellation of the deal with Interscope, as well as another agreement between Interscope and Durst’s Impeccable Records. Consequently, they argue that the ongoing distribution from Interscope regarding Limp Bizkit and Impeccable music constitutes a copyright infringement.
UMG’s Response and Ongoing Legal Battle
On March 17, Judge Percy Anderson of the US District Court in the Central District of California dismissed all claims against UMG, except for the copyright infringement claim, stating that non-copyright claims belong to the state court. Under U.S. law, copyright issues are federal cases, thus allowing Judge Anderson to proceed. He has given UMG until April 7 to respond in writing to the copyright allegations.
The outcome of these copyright claims hinges on whether Durst and Limp Bizkit can persuade the California court that their accusations are valid, thereby affirming their cancellation of interceding agreements.
This line of argument was unsuccessful in federal court. In January, Judge Anderson ruled that contract cancellation would require evidence of a “complete failure of performance” by UMG; the delays in certain royalty payments do not meet this standard, particularly since Interscope had “paid millions” in advances to Limp Bizkit and invested in their music, the judge concluded.
In its response to the federal lawsuit, UMG characterized the allegations as “fabrications.” The label asserted that it has invested millions in the production and promotion of Limp Bizkit’s music and that royalties would begin flowing once those investments were recouped.
UMG indicated that in the summer of 2024, it paid 1.04 million dollars in back royalties to Limp Bizkit and 2.35 million dollars to Impeccable Records. However, Durst and the band maintain that these payments only occurred after their new management demanded access to the UMG portal to review royalty records.
“Despite this huge ‘return,’ the group was still not paid a single cent by UMG in any fees, until they took legal action, raising questions about how this could be reality.”
Limp Bizkit, in a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of California
Nonetheless, UMG claimed that the head of the royalty department contacted Limp Bizkit’s business manager a year before the dispute arose, advising the manager to “set up a supplier for Limp Bizkit” to initiate payments to the group.
UMG dismissed the claim that it had been silent about Limp Bizkit’s royalties until their manager began probing the issue.
The group’s complaint in the California court asserts that they were told UMG did not notify them about royalties due to a “unified error” linked to a glitch in the new UMG software.
However, the complaint contends: “The plaintiffs do not believe that they were unpaid due to an alleged ‘one-time’ error or software issue, given that there is no reasonable explanation for how this supposed error impacted two completely separate accounts (Limp Bizkit and Flawless Records).”
Disputes may also arise regarding the selection of the California court for adjudicating these charges. UMG has argued in its federal court filings that the contracts with Limp Bizkit and Flawless stipulate that disputes should be resolved in New York courts.
Limp Bizkit and Fred Durst take case against UMG to California state court
