PROCEDURAL HURDLES PERSIST
Despite the high-profile nature of the lawsuit, Marasco continues to face challenges related to court procedure. In the previous case, Judge Cannon struck her filings for violating local rules, suggesting a steep learning curve for the pro se litigant. Nonetheless, Marasco has shown persistence, filing the new action independently (without a lawyer) and upping the ante with a much larger demand for damages.
Defendants, once served, will have 21 days to respond. Legal observers anticipate a swift move by Swift’s legal team to file a motion to dismiss, likely arguing lack of substantial similarity or failure to state a claim under the copyright statute.
WHAT’S NEXT?
While copyright lawsuits in the music industry are far from rare, most never make it to trial. Courts typically assess two key elements: access and substantial similarity. Given Swift’s prominence, access might be presumed—but proving substantial similarity, particularly of protectable elements, remains a high bar.
As with past lawsuits involving Swift—including the widely covered Shake It Off litigation—the outcome may turn on expert reports, musical analyses, and depositions regarding the songwriting process.
And then there’s the optics. Swift, known for carefully cultivating her public image, now finds herself the target of yet another lawsuit. Whether the court or public sees this as coincidence, homage, or infringement will be a narrative worth tracking.
