Last week, a judge dismissed what is almost certainly the final chapter in Vince Vance’s misguided “All I Want For Christmas Is You” lawsuits.
No surprise there. I’ve explained multiple times why the case was fundamentally flawed from the outset. The dismissal is the right outcome. But I’m left with an uneasy sense that something else still needs to be addressed.
Let’s be clear: Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You” does not infringe Vince Vance’s track of the same name. Yes, they share a title and a generic holiday sentiment. But those are not protectable elements. Beyond that, the songs diverge significantly — both musically and lyrically. The similarity ends where the copyright begins. That’s been covered here. The real story now is what happens after a case like this crashes and burns.
Carey is now pursuing nearly $200,000 in attorney’s fees, and the judge has imposed sanctions — a rare but telling move.
Let’s pause on that.
Mariah Carey can afford to defend herself. But why should she — or Ed Sheeran, or any other high-profile artist — be repeatedly forced to absorb the stress, cost, and reputational burden of baseless claims? Litigation is no small matter. It’s invasive, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. Frankly, I’m surprised Carey’s legal costs weren’t higher, and that’s a testament to an efficient team and a judge who rightly issued summary judgment. But the fact that it got even that far — and that Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud vs Let’s Get It On” case had to go all the way to a jury trial — raises questions.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exists for a reason. It allows courts to sanction parties who file frivolous lawsuits: claims with no legal foundation, no credible evidence, and no business clogging up the system or racking up bills. I’m not a lawyer, but this isn’t murky. The challenge isn’t understanding the rule — it’s considering where the issues lie and applying the rule consistently.
I was initially pleased to see the headline. “Mariah Carey asks for legal fees in ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ case.” As many times as I’ve called this case, “silly,” I naturally wanted to blame someone. But no part of me imagines that Vince Vance is anything but sincere in believing he was wronged. In my experience, clients are sincere, and every attorney I work genuinely wants the truth from me. So I have to wonder if it’s so simple — that the breakdown was client and attorney. Isn’t there a whole system letting too many shaky cases through the gate?
Again kudos, Carey walked away with summary judgment. But also a six-figure bill. And Sheeran wasn’t so lucky. Despite the weakness of the case against him, he endured a full jury trial and missed his grandmother’s funeral to do it. That trial never should have happened. The evidence didn’t warrant it. But the process dragged on, and here it comes, it was extended partly by expert opinions with which I could find little agreement.
And guess what? Right after I finish typing this, I will respond to an email from a music professor who believes “All I Want For Christmas Is You” and “Thinking Out Loud” are both infringing, and Carey and Sheeran got away easy! The gentleman is wrong, but they’re called “expert opinions” for a reason.
At least let us experts be reminded that musicologists are central to all of this. We are not attorneys, but we are often the keystone in these cases. When a forensic musicologist weighs in, it must be from a place of truth — not partisanship, not gamesmanship. Copyright litigation is not sport. It demands intellectual honesty, especially from those tasked with guiding courts through complex musical questions.
A vigorous legal defense, or offense, is every artist’s right. But a vigorous expert opinion must be built on clarity, discipline, and fidelity to the facts.
That’s how we avoid wasting time and money, and protect the system’s integrity.
