Mariah Carey Christmas Song Lawsuit Dismissal Likely, Per Report

Merry Christmas, Mariah Carey: A federal judge is reportedly partial to tossing a copyright infringement action centering on “All I Want for Christmas Is You.”

That interesting development just recently entered the media spotlight, after one Andy Stone first sued back in 2022. DMN has tracked the courtroom confrontation every step of the way since then – including when the initial filing was dismissed and then followed by a substantially similar complaint ( submitted this time in California) in November 2023.

According to the straightforward newer suit, Stone, a Louisiana-based artist known professionally as Vince Vance, co-wrote a work called “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” Penned in 1988, recorded sometime thereafter, and released the following year, the country effort is, of course, distinct from Carey's perennial holiday hit.

With the other songwriter on the less-famous “All I Want for Christmas Is You” also aboard as a plaintiff, the suit maintains that Carey's 1994 release of the same name lifted several elements without authorization.

Among other things, this alleged infringement encompasses the “compositional structure of an extended comparison between a loved one and trappings of seasonal luxury, and further includes several of Plaintiffs' lyrical phrases,” per the text.

Unsurprisingly, one of these lyrical phrases is “all I want for Christmas is you,” according to the appropriate track and the action, which explores the Carey release's commercial prominence, the works' purported technical overlap (“the songs share a similar syncopated chord pattern”), and a whole lot else.

Now, with the holiday season as well as the “All I Want for Christmas Is You” machine ramping up, the presiding judge could be preparing to toss the case altogether.

As laid out in the latest legal documents, both sides are seeking summary judgment, with the defendants urging the court to grant a sanctions motion to boot.

“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is also frivolous because it makes arguments that could not plausibly satisfy the extrinsic test as a matter of law on the record here,” the sanctions push reads in part. “For example, Plaintiffs' experts failed to analyze prior art and failed to distinguish between protectable and unprotected elements of expression.”

Moving beyond the multifaceted particulars of these arguments, Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani is “inclined” to grant summary judgment and do away with the case, per Rolling Stone.

More interesting yet – stated bluntly, it's hardly uncommon for infringement battles to come swear go in the contemporary music space – the court is reportedly weighing in earnest the defendants' sought sanctions over the allegedly “frivolous” suit.

At the time of this writing, a related order had not made its way into the docket, and it remains to be seen whether sanctions are actually in the cards. However, against the backdrop of allegedly questionable copyright complaints – and, in some instances, related trials – empowering defendants to pursue damages for allegedly meritless actions that could have far-reaching consequences.