Music Business Worldwide: Judge Throws Out the Copyright Suit Over Flo Milli's Never Lose Me

A federal judge in California has thrown out a copyright lawsuit over Flo Milli's 2023 hit Never Lose Me, Music Business Worldwide reported on November 10. The ruling turned on a single piece of paperwork: a $200 beat license that the producer never signed.

The decision did not find that anyone copied anything. It found that the man who sued did not have the legal right to bring the claim in the first place.

The Case

According to MBW, Baltimore based artist Shamar Deal said that a $200 purchase on the online beat marketplace Traktrain in 2019 gave him a 10 year exclusive license to a beat called Youu, made by producer Gerreaux, whose real name is Gerald Henry.

Deal alleged that Gerreaux later licensed the same beat to rappers Babyface Ray and 42 Dugg for their 2023 track Ron Artest, and that Flo Milli then sampled Ron Artest on Never Lose Me, released through RCA Records. He sued Flo Milli, Babyface Ray, 42 Dugg, Gerreaux, Sony Music Entertainment and EMPIRE, seeking at least $1 million in damages, MBW reported.

The Ruling

On November 6, Judge André Birotte Jr. dismissed Deal's copyright claims with prejudice, meaning he cannot simply rewrite and refile them in the same court. MBW said the judge had already thrown out an earlier version of the complaint in June over the same problem and allowed one more attempt.

The core issue was the signature. Deal admitted the producer never physically signed an agreement. He argued Gerreaux had signed electronically through his emails and his activity on Traktrain. The license document the platform generated was signed by Traktrain's owner, not by Gerreaux, according to MBW.

The judge accepted that an electronic agreement can satisfy the signature rule, but found nothing showing that Gerreaux signed or adopted that particular document. He wrote that the emails reflected "Gerreaux's acknowledgment that Plaintiff had purchased the Beat," which he said was "distinct from manifesting assent to the specific written instrument on which Plaintiff's standing depends."

The Legal Rule in Plain Terms

Under US copyright law, an exclusive license counts as a transfer of ownership. A transfer is not valid unless it is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights or an authorised agent. Only the legal owner or an exclusive licensee can sue for infringement.

MBW noted that the judge quoted a 1990 Ninth Circuit ruling on the point: "If the copyright holder agrees to transfer ownership to another party, that party must get the copyright holder to sign a piece of paper saying so." Without a valid signed license, Deal had no standing, so the court never reached the question of infringement.

Why It Matters for Beat Buyers

Online beat marketplaces have made it easy for independent artists to buy music in a few clicks. This case shows the gap between paying for a beat and owning exclusive rights in a way a court will enforce.

A receipt, a confirmation email or a platform's automatic license may not be enough on its own. Anyone paying for exclusivity should make sure the producer, or someone with written authority to act for the producer, signs the agreement itself.

What Happens Next

The order gave the defendants 10 days to file a proposed judgment, and Deal five days after that to object, MBW reported. Deal's lawyer, Larry Zerner, told Billboard that his client disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, saying independent artists who buy beats online "deserve to know that the licenses they pay for will hold up."

David Given, a lawyer for Babyface Ray and EMPIRE, told Billboard his clients welcomed the ruling. Unless an appeal succeeds, the decision ends Deal's copyright claims over both songs.

The accurate version of this story is narrow. A court has not said whether the songs used anyone's work without permission. It has said that an unsigned license cannot carry a copyright lawsuit.