WarnerMedia Direct, LLC v Paramount Global et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Streaming media licensing dispute over exclusive rights to new South Park content.
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied Paramount’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of WarnerMedia’s unjust enrichment claim.
The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action.
Unjust enrichment is unavailable where it duplicates a conventional contract or tort claim; here it rests on the same alleged misconduct as the tortious interference with contract claim (see Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 NY3d 777, 790 [2012]; RBG Mgt. Corp. v Village Super Mkt., Inc., 692 F Supp 3d 135, 155 [SDNY 2023]).
Background
WarnerMedia Direct, LLC, the domestic operator of the streaming platform HBO Max, entered into a Term Sheet granting a five-year exclusive license to stream certain content related to the animated series South Park. South Park Digital Studios LLC (SPDS) is the Licensor; WarnerMedia is the Licensee. Paramount Global owns and operates the streaming platform Paramount+, and MTV Entertainment Studios is a division of Paramount Global. WarnerMedia alleges SPDS breached the Term Sheet by diverting new South Park content that should have been covered by WarnerMedia’s exclusive license and licensing it instead to Paramount for streaming on Paramount+. WarnerMedia sued SPDS for breach of contract, and against non-party-to-the-contract Paramount it asserted tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (Chan, J.) denied Paramount’s motion for partial summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, allowing that claim to proceed alongside the tortious interference claim.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, granted Paramount’s motion, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the tortious interference claim because both were predicated on the same alleged usurpation of content licensed under the Term Sheet. The court did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that in New York, unjust enrichment cannot be used to replicate or backstop a tort claim where both rely on identical facts. In disputes involving non-contracting parties in intellectual property and content-licensing contexts, plaintiffs must articulate a non-duplicative enrichment theory tied to distinct conduct or benefits to survive dismissal.
If an unjust enrichment claim rests on the same conduct and harm as a tortious interference with contract claim, New York courts will dismiss it as duplicative.