This past weekend, the annual dust-up in the desert known as the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (“CVMAF”) wrapped up its two-weekend run. Operated by music industry behemoths Goldenvoice and AEG Present, and known for hazy, mellow vibes, bohemian garb, sparkly body paint, psychedelic art installations, Spicy Pie pizzas, muddy campsites, various forms of mind-altering substances, and a whole gaggle of other things, including music, the festival has been running in one form or another since 1999.
After an early-aughts hiccup that saw the event go dark for 2000, the CVMFAF has been building and cashing in on buzz for years, to the point that it sells now out irrespective of (and sometimes despite) the artists that it books for the weekend. The understanding is that attendees will snag pricey tickets and travel great distances for the “festival experience” and care not if it is Smash Mouth or Smashing Pumpkins or Li’l Smash up there performing musical numbers on the main stage. Of course, there is still a large contingent of dedicated music lovers who buy tickets, and a dwindling handful of iconic performers, like Beyonce, that will bring out masses of devoted fans to witness their live shows. But, for the most part, the draw of CVMAF has become the festival’s sepia-toned mystique itself.
And with great festival power comes great responsibility as well as a great big litigation warchest that the CVMAF can dig into to ensure that its hipster hegemony remains intact. Indeed, the CVMAF is on the forefront of artist preclusion — or radius — riders, which, drawn up and bulletproofed by its horde of well-heeled transactional attorneys, forbid artists that play the CVMAF from playing other festivals. It is this practice that has CVMAF on the receiving end of a thorny lawsuit, filed by Oregon-based Soul’d Out Productions. This company runs the Soul’d Out Festival up in Portland, Oregon, and takes the CVMAF to task for forcing its performers to sign agreements that forbid them from performing at any other festivals or “themed events” (if you want Marshmello to DJ your prom in June, you better make sure the relevant committee drops that whole under-the-sea concept) that takes place within five months and 1,300 miles of the CVMAF.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9e2e/f9e2e28c7683a499bcf9bee44e617c33a7419283" alt=""
The Fifth-Year Dilemma: Do I Stay Or Do I Go (In-House)?
How to make the right decision, and why there might be another way to shape a fulfilling legal career on your own terms.
Radius riders greatly benefit the CVMAF, as its appeal would arguably be diminished if you could go see the same performer the next week at a smaller, more intimate venue down the road for a much lower price. But, these riders may also unfairly restrict the artists and promoters who want to book them from doing business and plying their respective trades. Soul’d Out’s complaint alleges as much, averring that the CVMAF’s restrictive rider is so broad that it constitutes an unlawful restraint on trade and runs afoul of antitrust protections.
The CVMAF, for its part, responded that radius clauses are old-school, having been employed since festivals became a major thing. And, it argues, the festival marketplace is robust and not negatively impacted in the least by the CVMAF radius riders. Some would disagree, but the CVMAF notes that it will “vigorously defend against this lawsuit,” and has no plans to alter or allow new exceptions to the clause.
While most states view any restraint on trade with a wicked side-eye, certain contractual restraints on the practice of a profession, business, or trade (which would include, of course, emceeing, DJing, guitar-shredding, slapping da bass, rocking the suburbs, and so on) are considered valid so long as they are “reasonably imposed.” How do we know what is reasonable? Why, we weigh the circumstances of a case, of course. What does that mean? Well, we look at the nature and history of the restraint, its effects, and other relevant considerations. If this is hilariously circular and vague to you, too, well, you know why cases involving trade restraints are so murky.
Luckily, in California, we have Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600 for guidance, which rejects the “reasonable” standard and notes that, aside from a few exceptions, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” This law ensures “that every citizen shall retain the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice[,]” as the court noted in Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network 22 Cal.App.4th 853, 859 (1994). (Shadow Traffic Network would be a great band name, by the by.) The only exception to this rule is for “narrow restraints,” which impact merely a limited portion of a trade or profession and result in no undue burdens.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98d73/98d7380f93846c7bc48f94bbef066085b6b2433c" alt=""
Calculate Your Firm’s Time-Saving Potential
Want more time for what matters most? MyCase streamlines your firm so you can focus on winning cases. See how much time you could save with our Law Firm Time Savings Calculator—try it now!
So, the court will decide if the CVMAF, in restricting its artists from engaging in their trade at other music venues in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, or Arizona for almost two full quarters of the calendar year (and the lion’s share of the festival season), can seek shelter in the “narrow restraint” safe harbor.
Soul’d Out argues that CVMAF cannot, as it has unfairly hindered price and competition amongst music venues and promoters, and this has had the effect of damaging not only small promoters but music fans as well. Its lawyers point to a real-world impact of the CVMAF’s restrictive contracts, noting that numerous artists were interested in performing at Soul’d Out, but eventually declined, citing “the unlawful radius clause in their contracts with Coachella as the sole reason that they cannot do so.” Specifically, the excellent Tank and The Bangas had all but confirmed their appearance at Soul’D Out when they sent word that the CVMAF radius clause prohibited their attending.
An interesting wrinkle arrives in a strategic loophole that forbids CVMAF performers from performing at any other venues within the temporal and geographic window except for those operated by AEG Presents, which, of course, has a hand in the CVMAF. This type of tying arrangement has often been looked upon skeptically by the court, and may loom large as Soul’d Out’s case proceeds. In any event, if the case does not settle we could see precedent set that would impact the festival industry around the country, perhaps freeing artists from the restrictive burdens of CVMAF’s (and others’) contracts and allowed them to perform freely wherever and whenever they choose, just like accountants, florists, bakers, lawyers, and other professionals.
Scott Alan Burroughs, Esq. practices with Doniger / Burroughs, an art law firm based in Venice, California. He represents artists and content creators of all stripes and writes and speaks regularly on copyright issues. He can be reached at [email protected], and you can follow his law firm on Instagram: @veniceartlaw.