Jones v. Tesfaye — Copyright Infringement Claims Against The Weeknd and UMG Recordings Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Background

Darrin Jones, proceeding pro se, filed a copyright infringement action against music artists Abel Tesfaye (known as "the Weeknd") and Jordan Carter (known as "Playboi Carti"), as well as Interscope Records, A.W.G.E., and Universal Music Group. Jones alleged that he is the sole author and copyright owner of the musical composition and sound recording entitled "Make Sure" and that the defendants' song "Timeless" is substantially similar to his copyrighted work.

Tesfaye and UMG Recordings, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Moving Defendants submitted declarations establishing that Tesfaye is a Canadian citizen residing in Florida and that UMG Recordings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. They also presented evidence that Tesfaye's contributions to "Timeless" occurred in California, that UMG Recordings has no offices in Georgia and is not registered to do business there, and that the sound recording was released and promoted nationally.

Jones did not respond to the Moving Defendants' arguments or evidence regarding personal jurisdiction in either of his response briefs. The Court therefore evaluated whether Jones had alleged sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction under Georgia's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.

The Court’s Holding

The Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Tesfaye and UMG Recordings. The Court explained that the Copyright Act does not provide for nationwide service of process, so jurisdiction exists only if the defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of a Georgia court of general jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1).

Applying Georgia's long-arm statute, the Court construed Jones's allegations as seeking to establish jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(3), which permits jurisdiction over a nonresident who commits a tortious injury in Georgia caused by an act or omission outside Georgia if the tortfeasor regularly does or solicits business, engages in a persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in Georgia. The Court found that Jones failed to allege facts showing that Tesfaye or UMG Recordings regularly does or solicits business in Georgia, engages in a persistent course of conduct in Georgia, or derives substantial revenue from Georgia.

The Court also noted that Jones did not rebut the Moving Defendants' evidence that they do not regularly do or solicit business in Georgia, engage in a persistent course of conduct in Georgia, or derive substantial revenue from Georgia. Because Georgia's long-arm statute did not permit the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction, the Court dismissed all claims against Tesfaye and UMG Recordings. The claims against Jordan Carter and A.W.G.E. remain pending, and the Court ordered Jones to provide correct addresses for those defendants by November 23, 2026, so that the U.S. Marshals Service can effect service.

Key Takeaways

• The Copyright Act does not authorize nationwide service of process, so personal jurisdiction in copyright cases depends on the forum state's long-arm statute and traditional due process analysis.
• A plaintiff alleging copyright infringement must plead specific facts showing that nonresident defendants have the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state, such as regularly doing business, engaging in persistent conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from the state.
• When defendants submit non-conclusory affidavits controverting jurisdictional allegations, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting personal jurisdiction.
• A plaintiff's failure to respond to jurisdictional arguments and evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss can result in dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• General allegations that a defendant commercially distributes music nationwide, including in the forum state, are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction without specific facts showing regular business activity or substantial revenue derived from the forum.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces that copyright plaintiffs cannot rely solely on the national distribution of music to establish personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. Even in cases involving well-known artists and major record labels, plaintiffs must satisfy the traditional requirements of the forum state's long-arm statute and due process.

The ruling also highlights the importance of responding to jurisdictional challenges with specific factual allegations and evidence. A plaintiff's failure to engage with the defendants' jurisdictional arguments can be fatal to the claims, particularly when the defendants submit declarations establishing their lack of contacts with the forum state.