IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D. Fla.: Slavic-language recordings copyright owner's suit against digital music distributor dismissed, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The copyright owner failed to establish that Florida's long-arm statute or constitutional due process permitted the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state distributor.

A Florida federal district court has dismissed, without prejudice, a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the owner of Slavic-language sound recordings against an out-of-state music distributor, holding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the distributor. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute and that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process because the distributor's allegedly infringing online activities targeted the United States generally—not Florida specifically—and the mere availability of content on internet platforms accessible in Florida was insufficient to create minimum contacts (LM Media, LLC v. Ello Entertainment Group, LLC, No. 0:25-cv-60261-RKA (S.D. Fla. Jul. 17, 2026)).

The dispute arose between LM Media, LLC, a Florida company that owns copyrights and exclusive rights in Slavic-language sound recordings, and Ello Entertainment Group, LLC, a Wyoming-based distributor of sound recordings and videos with offices in California. LM Media alleged that Ello distributed unauthorized copies of its copyrighted recordings through digital music services, claimed ownership of those recordings through YouTube's copyright management system, and improperly collected royalties that belonged to LM Media.

According to the complaint, Ello operates as a global distributor of music and video content and contracts with artists and record labels to distribute recordings through online platforms. LM Media alleged that Ello knowingly distributed infringing copies of its copyrighted recordings to streaming services and video-sharing platforms, including YouTube, where users could access the recordings. It further alleged that Ello purposefully directed its activities toward the United States, including Florida, because Florida has a significant population of Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking residents who consume Eastern European music. LM Media sued under the Copyright Act, seeking damages and other relief. Ello moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.

Florida long-arm statute. The court first addressed whether Florida's long-arm statute authorized jurisdiction. Although LM Media cited several provisions of Florida Statutes section 48.193, the court observed that neither the complaint nor the plaintiff's response meaningfully explained how those provisions applied to the facts alleged. Nevertheless, the court considered three possible statutory bases for jurisdiction: carrying on a business in Florida under section 48.193(1)(a)(1), committing a tortious act within Florida under section 48.193(1)(a)(2), and causing injury within Florida under section 48.193(1)(a)(6).

The court rejected reliance on section 48.193(1)(a)(6), explaining that purely economic injury is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under that provision. Citing Courboin v. Scott, 596 F. App'x 729, 734 (11th Cir. 2014), the court held that Florida law requires more than economic harm suffered at a corporation's principal place of business. Because LM Media alleged only financial losses, the statutory requirement was not satisfied.

The court likewise concluded that Ello was not "carrying on a business" in Florida under section 48.193(1)(a)(1). Applying Future Technology Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare System, 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000) and Melgarejo v. Pycsa Panama, S.A., 537 F. App'x 852, 860 (11th Cir. 2013), the court noted that Ello had no Florida office, business license, or identified Florida operations. The mere fact that allegedly infringing recordings appeared on YouTube and were accessible to Florida residents did not establish that Ello conducted business in the state or create the required nexus between its Florida activities and the copyright claims.

Due process. Even assuming Florida's long-arm statute applied, the court held that exercising jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause. Applying the three-part test articulated in Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1355 (11th Cir. 2013), the court concluded that LM Media failed to establish purposeful availment under either the Calder effects test or the traditional minimum-contacts analysis.

Although copyright infringement is an intentional tort, the court held that LM Media failed to allege that Ello expressly targeted Florida. Instead, the complaint alleged only that Ello distributed recordings throughout the United States and globally, with Florida audiences constituting merely part of a broader market. The court emphasized that knowledge that a plaintiff may suffer harm in Florida is insufficient; rather, the forum itself must be the focal point of the challenged conduct.

The court reached the same conclusion under the traditional minimum-contacts test. Citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014), Del Valle v. Trivago GMBH, 56 F.4th 1265, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2022), and Louis Vuitton, the court explained that maintaining an interactive website or distributing content through nationwide online platforms does not, by itself, establish purposeful availment of a particular forum. LM Media alleged no targeted Florida advertising, Florida-specific marketing, or other conduct showing that Ello deliberately sought to serve the Florida market. Instead, the allegations showed only the nationwide distribution of digital content accessible to internet users everywhere. That was insufficient to establish constitutionally required minimum contacts.

The court observed that accepting LM Media's theory would effectively subject online content distributors to personal jurisdiction in every state where their content could be viewed. Such a result, the court explained, would conflict with Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent limiting the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants engaged in nationwide internet activity.

Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Ello, it declined to reach the distributor's remaining arguments for dismissal. It granted Ello's motion to dismiss, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied leave to amend because further amendment would be futile after extensive jurisdictional discovery, and closed the case.

The Case is No. 0:25-cv-60261-RKA.

Judge: Altman, R.

Attorneys: George Lambert (Law Office of George Lambert) for LM Media LLC. Stuart Michael Silverman (Law Offices of Stuart M. Silverman, PA) for Ello Entertainment Group, LLC.

Companies: LM Media LLC; Ello Entertainment Group, LLC

Cases: Copyright FloridaNews TechnologyInternet