Blurred Lines Lawsuit: The Case That Put a “Groove” on Trial
Questions about this case?
AI Legal Assistant · free · answers in seconds · general information, not legal advice
The Blurred Lines lawsuit is over. A jury found in 2015 that the 2013 hit by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams infringed Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got To Give It Up.” The Ninth Circuit upheld that in 2018, and the final judgment came to nearly $5 million plus half of future songwriter and publishing revenue for Gaye’s children. It was a dispute between artists and an estate — not a class action. There is no settlement, no claim form and nothing for the public to collect.
Editorially Reviewed — Content reviewed for accuracy using published legal research, government data, and verified court records. See our methodology
Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated
What the Gaye Family Claimed
The fight did not start with the Gayes suing. After the Gaye family made an infringement demand, Williams, Thicke and Clifford Harris, Jr. (T.I.) sued first, on August 15, 2013, asking a court to declare that “Blurred Lines” did not infringe. Gaye’s heirs — Frankie Christian Gaye, Marvin Gaye III and Nona Marvisa Gaye — counterclaimed for infringement.
The two songs do not share a melody line you could hum side by side. The Gayes’ musicologist instead described a “constellation” of eight similarities: a signature phrase, hooks, backup-vocal hooks, bass melodies, keyboard parts and unusual percussion choices. The other side’s expert said there were no substantial similarities in melody, rhythm, harmony or structure.
That is the real question of the case: courts treat basic building blocks — common chord progressions, harmonic rhythm and standard rhythmic patterns — as free for everyone, while a specific combination of expression can be protected. Where a shared “feel” ends and copying begins is what the jury had to decide.
Case Details
The case is Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The appeal is Williams v. Gaye, Ninth Circuit Nos. 15-56880, 16-55089 and 16-55626, decided by Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr., Mary H. Murguia and Jacqueline H. Nguyen. The original opinion is reported at 885 F.3d 1150; the amended opinion of July 11, 2018 at 895 F.3d 1106.
One limit shaped the whole trial: because “Got To Give It Up” was registered in 1977 under the Copyright Act of 1909, the court held the copyright covered only the six pages of sheet music deposited with the Copyright Office — not Gaye’s recording. The jury compared the composition, not the record.
Status: Final Judgment, Case Closed
The appeals court also reversed one part: the jury had cleared T.I. and the Interscope parties, the trial judge had overturned that, and the Ninth Circuit reinstated the jury’s verdict in their favor.
Who Was Affected — and Who Was Not
Only the parties. The money went to Marvin Gaye’s three children as copyright owners; the obligation sits with the songwriters and their publishing entity. There was never a class, so listeners, buyers of the single, streamers or fans have no claim and never had one.
Why it still matters to musicians: the dissent warned that the verdict let an estate “copyright a musical style.” Amicus briefs on appeal came from musicologists and from 212 songwriters, composers, musicians and producers. Later courts narrowed what the case can be read to mean — see the timeline below.
What Was Paid — and to Whom
How cases like this one end
Our copy of the federal courts’ own case database covers 56,816 federal civil cases of this typeclosed in U.S. federal district courts between 2015 and 2025:
- 20.1% ended in a settlement recorded by the court. Another 57.3% were dismissed voluntarily, which often follows a private settlement — so the real settlement share sits between 20.1% and 77.4%.
- 2.1% were decided on a motion before any trial.
- 1 in 310 reached a trial (0.3%), after a median of 29.4 months.
- Median time from filing to the end of the case: 4.3 months.
- Only 1,959 of them (3.4%) record a money award at all; the median of those is $35,000.
These are base rates for this type of case — not a prediction about this lawsuit, and not legal advice. Source: Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (civil), analysed by Settlement Insight. Cases heard in state courts are not included.
Blurred Lines Lawsuit Timeline
- 1
August 15, 2013 — Thicke and Williams Sue First
After the Gaye family’s infringement demand, Williams, Thicke and Harris ask the Central District of California to declare that the song does not infringe. The Gayes counterclaim.
- 2
March 10, 2015 — Jury Finds Infringement
After a seven-day trial, the jury finds Williams, Thicke and More Water From Nazareth Publishing liable, clears Harris and the Interscope parties, and awards $4 million in actual damages plus profits.
- 3
December 2, 2015 — Judgment Entered
Judge Kronstadt reduces the damages, adds a 50% running royalty and holds Harris and the Interscope parties liable despite the jury’s verdict.
- 4
March 21, 2018 — Ninth Circuit Affirms
A 2–1 panel upholds the infringement verdict and reverses the ruling against Harris and Interscope. Judge Nguyen dissents. The opinion is amended on July 11, 2018, and rehearing en banc is denied.
- 5
December 13, 2018 — Final Judgment Reported
The amended judgment totals nearly $5 million plus interest and 50 percent of future songwriter and publishing revenue for the Gaye family.
- 6
2020–2025 — Later Courts Draw the Line
In Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (March 9, 2020) the Ninth Circuit, en banc, drops the inverse ratio rule. In the Ed Sheeran “Let’s Get It On” case the Second Circuit affirms on November 1, 2024 that common chord progressions and harmonic rhythm are not protectable; the Supreme Court denies review on June 16, 2025.
Three Things to Watch For
A famous case with a big number attached draws misleading pitches:
“Blurred Lines settlement” claim pages
There was never a class settlement for fans, buyers or streamers. A site asking for your details or payment info to “claim your Blurred Lines share” is not connected to the case.
“Your song sounds like a hit — pay us to sue”
Songwriters get solicitations citing this case as proof that a similar “feel” wins millions. Later decisions say common chord progressions and rhythms are unprotectable; get an independent opinion before paying for a musicology report or a contingency deal.
Royalty-buyout offers using the Gaye verdict
Offers to buy “infringement claims” or a slice of a catalog sometimes lean on this case to inflate value. The Sheeran litigation was brought by a company holding an interest in a song — and lost. Treat projected payouts as sales talk.
Blurred Lines Lawsuit — Questions People Actually Ask
Who won the Blurred Lines lawsuit?
Marvin Gaye’s children — Frankie Christian Gaye, Marvin Gaye III and Nona Marvisa Gaye. A jury found on March 10, 2015 that “Blurred Lines” infringed “Got To Give It Up,” and the Ninth Circuit upheld that on March 21, 2018.
How much did Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams have to pay?
Nearly $5 million under the amended final judgment reported December 13, 2018, plus interest and 50 percent of future songwriter and publishing revenue from the song. The jury’s original award was about $7.3 million before the judge reduced it.
Did Blurred Lines copy the melody?
Not in the usual sense. The Gayes’ expert pointed to a combination of eight elements — hooks, bass lines, keyboard parts, percussion choices — rather than one copied tune. Judge Nguyen’s dissent said the songs differ in melody, harmony and rhythm and share only a “groove,” which is an unprotectable idea.
Was T.I. found liable?
No. The jury cleared Clifford Harris, Jr. and the Interscope parties. The trial judge overturned that, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and reinstated the jury’s verdict in their favor.
Why couldn’t the jury hear Marvin Gaye’s recording?
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, the court limited the copyright to the sheet music deposited in 1977. The Ninth Circuit accepted that ruling without deciding it, and in 2020 the en banc Ninth Circuit held in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin that the deposit copy defines the scope of such older copyrights.
Can I get money from the Blurred Lines lawsuit?
No. It was a case between the songwriters and the Gaye estate, not a class action. There is no settlement, fund or claim form, and any site offering one is not legitimate.
Did the case change copyright law?
Less than feared. The majority itself said its decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or “groove.” In 2020 the Ninth Circuit said Williams v. Gaye did not exempt music from ordinary copyright limits, and the Second Circuit in the Sheeran case (No. 23-905) held common chord progressions and harmonic rhythms unprotectable.
Is anything still pending in 2026?
No. As of October 2026 the case is closed: an amended judgment was entered and reported on December 13, 2018. The related Ed Sheeran dispute ended when the Supreme Court denied review in No. 24-981 on June 16, 2025.
Separate from this case: were you injured in the last 2 years?
Class-action payouts are fixed amounts through an administrator. A personal injury claim is a different case — and often worth far more. Free estimate, no obligation.
Related Consumer Brand Lawsuits
Copyright Damages Calculator
How actual damages, profits and statutory damages are figured
Open Class Action Settlements
Settlements that are actually taking claims right now
Settlement Payout Calculator
Estimate what a class member typically receives
Data Breach Settlement Calculator
Typical payouts in data breach class actions