All I Want for Christmas is my Legal Fees Paid: Mariah Carey wins Copyright Case Against Her Number One Christmas Hit

Popstar sensation, Mariah Carey, was sued for copyright infringement involving her song “All I Want for Christmas Is You”. As of March 20th, 2025, Carey has since been found not liable for the infringement [1]. Vince Vance, formally known as Andy Stone, of the band Vance & the Valiants, sued Carey in 2022, alleging she exploited their Christmas song of the same name and copied their “style” [2]. The ongoing legal dispute has now come to a close with a federal judge ruling that Carey did not violate any trademark or copyright issues.  

The plaintiff of the case, Stone, argued that Carey had access to Vance before writing and releasing her song. Stone's team argued Carey copied Vance’s lyrics, chord progression, melody, harmony, and compositional structure [3]. On February 2nd, 2024, Carey filed an unopposed motion for an order establishing an Initial Expert Phase as to the Extrinsic Test [3]. Essentially, they are requesting that the court set up a process where expert witnesses can analyze and present their opinions on the Extrinsic Test. The Extrinsic Test is often used in copyright cases to determine if two works are similar based on objective factors, like specific elements or details, rather than overall impression [4]. This would also allow experts to provide evidence of those elements before moving forward with the case. Carey’s team requested a summary judgment, which invoked the legal standard of its usage in copyright cases. A summary judgment is when a judge decides the case without a full trial, if it meets two conditions. The first requirement is that there is no real dispute over key facts. Integral facts of the case are clear and agreed upon, so there is nothing for a jury to decide. The second criteria is that the law must be on the requesting party’s side. Based on material facts, the law clearly supports their position, leaving only one reasonable outcome. When these conditions are met, the judge can rule in their favor without needing a trial.  

The case concluded last Thursday, when Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and their motions for sanctions. The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied. According to the ruling, “Defendants must file within two weeks of the order a detailed proposed judgment and motion for attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in preparing their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion and the Motion for Sanctions” [3]. Essentially, Stone’s team must pay for retroactive attorney fees incurred on the defendant, Carey’s side, as determined by her team in a timely manner to receive their retribution.  

Future implications from this case, while they may not be apparent now, can range from the music industry to the legal system. Record labels and streaming platforms may tighten copyright policies, leading to more licensing agreements and stricter content review to avoid lawsuits. One landmark case on the subject was Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams v. Marvin Gaye [4]. Gaye's estate sued the duo, arguing that they stole the general “vibe” of Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” on their smash hit, “Blurred Lines”. Thicke and Williams lost the case and were ordered to pay $5.3 million in damages and a 50% royalty fee, making the case the largest payout in music copyright history [5]. While Carey did not face the same fate, the argument provided by the plaintiff mirrors that of Carey’s case, while showing an inverse conclusion. As for the legal landscape, courts may take a stricter approach to analyzing whether a song has been copied. The Extrinsic Test may be updated with more objective approaches. Music producers may also become more cautious when composing songs to avoid legal disputes over melody, lyrics, or arrangements, such as in Carey’s case. This case did not set a new precedent as the ruling was narrow due to the summary judgement. But because of its narrow ruling, it did not allow for a frivolous case to clog up the judicial system. Carey could have made it easier for artists accused in the same vein in the future.  

The resolution of Mariah Carey’s copyright case underscores the complexities of music copyright law and its implications for the industry. While the ruling did not establish a new legal precedent, it reaffirmed the importance of objective legal standards, such as the Extrinsic Test, in determining infringement claims. The court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Carey not only saved judicial resources but also signaled that vague claims of stylistic similarity may not be sufficient to invoke a full trial. Moving forward, this case may serve as a cautionary example, discouraging weak or speculative lawsuits while reinforcing the necessity of concrete evidence in copyright disputes. As the music industry continues to evolve, legal battles like this will shape how artists, record labels, and streaming platforms navigate the fine line between inspiration and infringement.

Sources:

1. Mariah Carey Wins Copyright Lawsuit Over 'All I Want for Christmas Is You', Reuters (March 20, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/mariah-carey-wins-copyright-lawsuit-over-all-i-want-christmas-is-you-2025-03-20/.   
2. Id. 
3. Mariah Carey Wins Copyright Lawsuit Over 'All I Want for Christmas is You’, WTVCFOX (March 21, 2025), https://foxchattanooga.com/news/entertainment/mariah-carey-wins-copyright-lawsuit-over-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you-singer-vocalist-songwriter-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-nominee-infringement-song-songs-album-music-musicians. 
4. Research Guides at University of Michigan Library, https://guides.lib.umich.edu/substantial-similarity/glossary. 
5. 5 Famous Music Copyright Cases, CNN (December 12, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/entertainment/taylor-swift-music-copyright-cases/index.html.  
6. Music Copyright and Licensing: Music Copyright cases Musicians Institute Library, https://library.mi.edu/musiccopyright/currentcases.