1017-00003 · Aurelius Global Media Group · Legal Analysis & Strategy

section-17200-supplemental-claim-memo.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

31 / 37 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

TO: Marcus Delgado, Partner; Wendy Schultz, Senior Associate

FROM: Omar Siddiqui, Associate

DATE: March 5, 2026

RE: Viability of Supplemental State Law Claim Under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC v. StreamNow Holdings, Inc. et al.

Matter No.: 1017-00003

Client: Aurelius Global Media Group PLC

I. Executive Summary

This memorandum analyzes the viability of asserting a supplemental state unfair competition claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 against StreamNow Holdings, Inc. ("StreamNow"), a Delaware corporation headquartered at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010, and potentially Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD"), a California limited liability company (SOS File No. 202115729430) with its registered address at 8912 Burton Way, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90211, and MDD's sole member and manager, Franklin Ogilvie. This memorandum supplements the Copyright Infringement Claim Analysis dated March 3, 2026, the DMCA Safe Harbor Non-Applicability Memorandum dated March 4, 2026, and the Willfulness Analysis Memorandum also dated March 4, 2026, and should be read in conjunction with each of those prior memoranda.

Based on my analysis of the applicable statutory framework, relevant Ninth Circuit and California appellate authority, and the factual record as presently understood, I conclude as follows:

StreamNow's unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of 217 Aurelius-owned audiovisual works over an approximately 22-month period (from approximately April 1, 2024 through January 31, 2026), generating an estimated $38.6 million in attributable revenue, constitutes an unlawful and unfair business practice actionable under Section 17200. The conduct at issue — acquiring content through a fraudulent intermediary with no actual authority to license, commercially exploiting that content to undercut authorized licensees, and presenting unlicensed content to consumers as though properly authorized — goes well beyond mere copyright infringement and implicates the competitive harm and deceptive business practice dimensions that Section 17200 is specifically designed to address.

The Section 17200 claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act because it targets conduct beyond mere reproduction — specifically, the unfair competitive dimension of StreamNow's business practices, the deceptive nature of its content acquisition through MDD and Ogilvie, and the broader market-distorting effects of its unauthorized distribution. The claim contains sufficient "extra elements" to survive a preemption challenge under 17 U.S.C. § 301, though this assessment is not free from risk and careful pleading will be required.

Remedies available under Section 17200 — restitution and injunctive relief — complement and are not duplicative of the remedies available under the Copyright Act. Restitution under Section 17203 may prove particularly valuable with respect to the 28 titles for which copyright registrations were made after infringement commenced (registered between May 2024 and October 2025), and for which statutory damages and attorney's fees are therefore unavailable under the Copyright Act. Injunctive relief under Section 17200 may also prove broader in scope than a copyright injunction, potentially reaching StreamNow's overall business practices and preventing future similar conduct with respect to other content owners' materials.

Recommendation: Include the Section 17200 claim as a supplemental cause of action in the contemplated complaint to be filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division), exercising supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The claim should be framed primarily under the "unfair" prong of Section 17200, with the "unlawful" prong providing secondary support, and should be asserted against all three defendants — StreamNow, MDD, and Franklin Ogilvie. The claim should be pleaded with specificity to emphasize the extra elements of competitive harm, deceptive business practices, and market distortion that distinguish it from the federal copyright claims.

II. Background Facts

A. The Parties

1. Aurelius Global Media Group PLC

Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("Aurelius" or "AGMG") is a public limited company incorporated in England and Wales under Companies House Registration Number 08724561, with its principal offices located at 45 Clarewood Place, London W1K 6TH, United Kingdom. Aurelius is a diversified media and entertainment conglomerate with fiscal year 2025 revenue of approximately £1.87 billion (approximately $2.36 billion at a conversion rate of £1 = $1.26). Aurelius's ordinary shares are listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AIM: AGLM, and American Depositary Receipts representing Aurelius's ordinary shares are traded over-the-counter in the United States. Aurelius's content library encompasses over 4,200 film and television titles spanning multiple genres and languages, and the company is recognized as one of the premier independent media groups operating globally.

2. Aurelius Media Americas, Inc.

Aurelius Media Americas, Inc. ("AMA") is a wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary of AGMG, with its principal place of business located at 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, California 90067. AMA holds and administers United States copyright registrations for certain Aurelius titles and functions as the primary operational entity for Aurelius's North American distribution, licensing, and enforcement activities. AMA is the registered copyright claimant for the majority of the 217 titles at issue in this matter.

3. StreamNow Holdings, Inc.

StreamNow Holdings, Inc. ("StreamNow" or "SNH") is a Delaware corporation (File No. 7291843), with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010. StreamNow was founded in 2019 and remains privately held. StreamNow's majority equity holder is Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP, which holds an approximately 62% fully diluted ownership stake following its $145 million Series C investment, the closing of which occurred in June 2022. The general partner of Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP is Pinnacle Ventures Management III, LLC, headquartered at 101 California Street, Suite 3500, San Francisco, California 94111; the managing partner of Pinnacle Ventures Management III, LLC is Howard Cheng. StreamNow's estimated fiscal year 2025 revenue is approximately $312 million.

StreamNow operates what it describes as a "super-aggregator" streaming platform, which bundles content from multiple studios and independent distributors into subscription-based and advertising-supported ("AVOD") viewing interfaces available to consumers in 14 countries. In addition to its direct-to-consumer offerings, StreamNow sublicenses curated content bundles to third-party Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television ("FAST") channel operators, generating sublicensing fees as a distinct revenue stream.

StreamNow's key officers include: Derek Calloway, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder; Priya Menon, Chief Operating Officer and Co-Founder; Tobias Rennert, General Counsel; and Sandra Yee, Vice President of Content Acquisition. StreamNow's outside litigation counsel is Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP, located at 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90071, with Victoria Langford (IP Litigation partner) as lead counsel and Brian Matsuda as the primary associate on the matter.

4. Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC

Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD") is a California limited liability company, formed in late 2021 and registered with the California Secretary of State under File Number 202115729430, with its registered address at 8912 Burton Way, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90211. MDD's sole member and manager is Franklin Ogilvie.

Ogilvie is a former mid-level licensing manager at AMA, where he was employed from approximately 2017 through June 30, 2021. Ogilvie's employment with AMA was terminated following an internal investigation into unauthorized access to Aurelius's content management systems. The investigation, conducted by Aurelius's internal audit team with assistance from outside cybersecurity consultants, revealed that Ogilvie had accessed restricted licensing databases and content metadata repositories without authorization in the months preceding his termination. Ogilvie's June 30, 2021 separation agreement with AMA included, among other provisions, non-compete and non-solicitation covenants, as well as an explicit prohibition on the use of any Aurelius intellectual property, proprietary information, or confidential business data. Despite these contractual obligations, within approximately six months of his separation, Ogilvie formed MDD and began representing to third parties — including StreamNow — that MDD had authority to distribute Aurelius content.

B. The Infringing Conduct

StreamNow ingested a total of 217 Aurelius-owned titles into its streaming platform and made them available for consumer viewing without authorization from Aurelius, AMA, or any other authorized Aurelius entity. The 217 titles comprise 142 feature films and 75 television series encompassing a total of 1,038 individual episodes. The works span a broad cross-section of Aurelius's most valuable and commercially significant content properties.

Among the key franchises and titles affected by StreamNow's unauthorized distribution are the following:

• The "Meridian" franchise, consisting of six feature films that have generated a combined $1.43 billion in global box office revenue. The Meridian franchise is one of Aurelius's flagship properties and among the most commercially valuable film franchises originated by a European studio. The unauthorized availability of these films on StreamNow's platform directly undermined Aurelius's ongoing exclusive licensing arrangements with authorized streaming platforms.

• The "Iron Compass" series, a critically acclaimed espionage drama comprising four seasons and 48 episodes, which averaged 9.2 million viewers per episode during its original United Kingdom broadcast run. Iron Compass has been the subject of premium exclusive licensing deals with major streaming platforms in the United States and internationally, and Aurelius has consistently commanded top-tier licensing fees for this property.

• The "Thornfield" period drama catalog, consisting of 12 titles that have collectively won seven BAFTA awards. The Thornfield catalog represents a distinctive and highly curated body of work that commands premium licensing rates in the prestige drama market segment.

StreamNow claims that it obtained distribution rights to the Aurelius content through a Content Distribution Agreement with MDD, purportedly dated March 15, 2024. This claim was articulated in an email from Sandra Yee (StreamNow's VP of Content Acquisition) to Aurelius's external counsel, dated November 3, 2025, in response to Aurelius's initial cease-and-desist correspondence. Aurelius's records, however, confirm unequivocally that it never granted MDD any license, sublicense, distribution authority, or other right to distribute any Aurelius content. MDD is not and has never been an authorized distributor of Aurelius content. The purported authority on which MDD relied to enter into the Content Distribution Agreement with StreamNow was entirely fabricated.

In addition to making the Aurelius content available directly on its own platform, StreamNow sublicensed content bundles containing Aurelius titles to four third-party FAST channel operators:

(i) Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc., a corporation based in Dallas, Texas;

(ii) BrightLoop Media, LLC, a limited liability company based in Miami, Florida;

(iii) Velvet Stream Partners, LP, a limited partnership based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and

(iv) Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd, a proprietary limited company based in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

The period of infringement extends approximately 22 months, from approximately April 1, 2024 (when the first Aurelius titles began appearing on StreamNow's platform) through January 31, 2026 (when StreamNow removed the remaining Aurelius titles following Aurelius's formal demand and threat of litigation).

Based on the forensic revenue attribution analysis performed by CipherTrace Analytics, the total revenue attributable to Aurelius content during the infringement period is estimated at $38.6 million, broken down as follows:

The infringement was discovered by Lena Kowalski, Head of Digital Rights Enforcement at Aurelius, who identified Aurelius titles on StreamNow's platform on October 15, 2025 during routine monitoring of unauthorized distribution channels. Ms. Kowalski escalated the matter to Fiona Hartwell, General Counsel of Aurelius, on October 22, 2025, after completing an initial scope assessment confirming the breadth of the unauthorized availability.

C. Competitive Harm

StreamNow's unauthorized availability of Aurelius content at lower price points — both through StreamNow's own subscription and AVOD tiers and through the downstream FAST channel sublicensees — has demonstrably reduced Aurelius's licensing leverage with authorized platforms. Aurelius's business development team has reported that at least two authorized platform partners have cited the availability of Aurelius content on StreamNow as a basis for seeking reduced licensing fees in current renewal negotiations. This competitive harm extends beyond Aurelius itself to the broader content licensing marketplace, as StreamNow's ability to offer premium content without paying legitimate licensing fees distorts market pricing and creates an uneven competitive playing field.

The fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month infringement period in the relevant territories has been estimated at $14.2 million, based on Aurelius's existing licensing agreements with authorized platforms for comparable content, adjusted for territory, term, and distribution channel. This estimate was prepared as part of a preliminary analysis by Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC, under the supervision of Dr. Elena Vasquez, and is subject to refinement as additional discovery is obtained. Dr. Vasquez's preliminary model further estimates total net recoverable damages of $41.3 million when combined with disgorgement of StreamNow's profits attributable to the infringement.

III. Elements of a § 17200 Claim

A. Statutory Framework

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 defines "unfair competition" broadly to include "any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising." The statute provides an expansive and flexible framework for addressing competitive misconduct and is widely recognized as one of the most powerful tools in California's consumer protection and business regulation arsenal.

Critically, Section 17200 is disjunctive: a challenged business practice need only satisfy one of the three substantive prongs — unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent — to be actionable. See Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) ("Because Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition — acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent."). A plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that all three prongs are satisfied; a single prong suffices.

Standing. Following the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2004, standing to bring a private action under Section 17200 is limited to any person or entity that has "suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition." Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. This standing requirement imposes a causation element, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's unfair business practice caused the plaintiff's economic injury.

Aurelius satisfies the standing requirements of Section 17204 as amended. Aurelius has suffered a demonstrable injury in fact consisting of lost licensing revenue of at least $14.2 million — the fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month infringement period — and has experienced diminished competitive positioning in the content licensing marketplace directly resulting from StreamNow's unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content. These economic injuries are concrete, particularized, and directly traceable to StreamNow's challenged business practices. There is no reasonable basis for a standing challenge on these facts.

B. "Unlawful" Prong

The "unlawful" prong of Section 17200 "borrows" violations of other laws — federal, state, or local — and treats them as independently actionable as unfair competition. See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 377, 383 (1992) ("By proscribing 'any unlawful' business practice, section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as independently actionable."). Virtually any law — criminal, civil, statutory, regulatory, or common law — can serve as the predicate for an "unlawful" prong claim, provided that the defendant's conduct violates the predicate law.

StreamNow's conduct violates multiple federal and state laws, providing a robust basis for the "unlawful" prong:

First, StreamNow's conduct constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 through the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of 217 copyrighted audiovisual works. The federal copyright violation provides a clear and well-established predicate unlawful act for purposes of the Section 17200 "unlawful" prong.

Second, StreamNow's conduct arguably violates the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law principles of unfair competition by misleading consumers regarding the authorized provenance of the content available on its platform. By presenting Aurelius content as if it were properly licensed and authorized for distribution, StreamNow created a false impression regarding the source and authorization of the content — a form of false designation of origin.

Third, as to MDD and Ogilvie specifically, their conduct in purporting to license content they had no authority to distribute constitutes fraud and breach of the June 30, 2021 separation agreement — violations of California common law and contractual obligations that independently serve as predicate unlawful acts.

The "unlawful" prong represents the strongest and most straightforward basis for the Section 17200 claim. The predicate copyright violations are clear-cut, and the borrowing mechanism of the "unlawful" prong does not require Aurelius to establish any additional elements beyond the underlying violation itself.

C. "Unfair" Prong

The "unfair" prong of Section 17200 operates independently of any violation of another law and targets business practices that, while not necessarily illegal, are nonetheless unfair. California courts have applied different tests for determining whether a practice is "unfair" depending on the context of the case:

In competitor cases (where the plaintiff is a business competitor rather than a consumer), the California Supreme Court in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 186–87 (1999), adopted a "tethering" or "balancing" test, requiring that the challenged practice be "tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some actual or threatened impact on competition." More broadly, the court examines whether the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff and the public outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct.

In consumer cases, courts have applied alternative formulations, including the test articulated in South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861, 886 (1999), which asks whether the practice (1) threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, (2) violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or (3) otherwise significantly threatens or injures consumers.

Application to the Present Facts. StreamNow's conduct satisfies the "unfair" prong under any of the applicable tests. StreamNow acquired and commercially exploited premium audiovisual content through an unauthorized intermediary — MDD, controlled by a former Aurelius employee who had been terminated for unauthorized access to Aurelius's content management systems and who had expressly agreed not to use Aurelius intellectual property. StreamNow then leveraged this unlicensed content to gain significant competitive advantage in the streaming marketplace by offering premium properties — including the Meridian franchise, the Iron Compass series, and the Thornfield catalog — without incurring the licensing costs that authorized competitors must bear.

By avoiding legitimate licensing fees, StreamNow was able to undercut Aurelius's authorized licensees on price, offering consumers access to high-value content at artificially low subscription rates or through free advertising-supported tiers. This pricing advantage was built entirely on the wrongful acquisition of content and created competitive harm that extends beyond the copyright holder to the broader content distribution market. Authorized platforms that paid fair market rates for licensed content were forced to compete against a rival that had obtained the same or comparable content at no cost, distorting market pricing signals and undermining the incentive structure that underpins the entire content licensing ecosystem.

The harm to Aurelius — consisting of $14.2 million in lost licensing revenue, $38.6 million in diverted revenue, and diminished competitive positioning in ongoing licensing negotiations — vastly outweighs any utility of StreamNow's conduct. StreamNow's purported utility — making content more widely available to consumers — is entirely illegitimate when the content was obtained through fraud and without authorization. No legitimate competitive interest is served by permitting a market participant to free-ride on another's intellectual property to gain market share.

D. "Fraudulent" Prong

The "fraudulent" prong of Section 17200 requires a showing that members of the public are "likely to be deceived" by the challenged business practice. See Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal. 3d 197, 211 (1983). Unlike common law fraud, the "fraudulent" prong does not require proof of actual deception, reliance, or damages — it is sufficient to show that the practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

StreamNow presented Aurelius's content on its platform — including prominent franchise titles bearing Aurelius's distinctive branding, logos, and credit sequences — as if properly licensed and authorized for distribution. Consumers viewing Aurelius titles on StreamNow would reasonably understand that StreamNow had obtained the necessary rights to distribute the content, when in fact it had not. This misrepresentation, while implicit rather than explicit, is sufficient to establish that members of the public were likely to be deceived regarding the authorized provenance of the content.

The "fraudulent" prong may be viable, but I assess it as the weakest of the three prongs for purposes of this claim. The implicit nature of the deception — StreamNow did not make affirmative false statements about its licensing, but rather created a misleading impression through the act of distribution itself — introduces some uncertainty regarding the strength of this prong. The "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs provide more straightforward and reliable paths to liability, and I recommend that the "fraudulent" prong, while pleaded in the complaint, be positioned as a tertiary basis for the claim.

IV. Federal Preemption Analysis

A. Copyright Act Preemption Under 17 U.S.C. § 301

The most significant legal obstacle to the Section 17200 claim is the potential for federal preemption under Section 301 of the Copyright Act. Section 301(a) provides that:

"[A]ll legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 . . . are governed exclusively by this title. . . . [N]o person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State."

The preemption analysis under Section 301 involves a two-part test. See Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2006). First, the court asks whether the work at issue falls within the subject matter of copyright as specified in Sections 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act. Second, the court asks whether the right asserted under state law is "equivalent to" any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by Section 106.

As to the first prong, the works at issue — 217 audiovisual works comprising feature films and television series — clearly fall within the subject matter of copyright. Audiovisual works are expressly enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(6) as a category of copyrightable works. This prong of the preemption analysis is satisfied without question.

The critical question, therefore, is the second prong: whether the Section 17200 claim asserts rights that are "equivalent to" the exclusive rights under Section 106 — specifically, the rights of reproduction (§ 106(1)), distribution (§ 106(3)), and public performance (§ 106(4)) — or whether the claim contains qualitatively different elements that distinguish it from a copyright infringement claim.

B. The "Extra Element" Test

The Ninth Circuit and other federal courts apply the "extra element" test to determine equivalence under Section 301(a). Under this test, a state law claim survives preemption if it contains an "extra element" that changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim. See Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 1998); Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004). The "extra element" must transform the nature of the claim, not merely add a quantitative difference.

Courts in the Ninth Circuit and California state courts have addressed the preemption question specifically in the context of Section 17200 claims in copyright cases. The case law establishes that a Section 17200 claim predicated on conduct that goes beyond mere copying — i.e., a claim that alleges an independent basis of unfairness or deception in the defendant's business practices — can survive preemption if it contains an "extra element" beyond the rights protected by copyright. See, e.g., Summit Machine Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Systems, Inc., 7 F.3d 1434, 1440 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing extra element analysis in the context of state unfair competition claims); Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1089–90 (9th Cir. 2005).

Conversely, where a Section 17200 claim is based solely and entirely on the act of unauthorized copying, with no additional element of unfairness or deception beyond the copying itself, the claim is preempted. See Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (discussing preemption of state claims based on unauthorized use of creative works).

Application. The Section 17200 claim as contemplated here contains several "extra elements" that make it qualitatively different from the federal copyright infringement claims:

First, StreamNow engaged in deceptive business practices by presenting unlicensed content to consumers and business partners as authorized. This element of deception — the creation of a false impression of legitimacy — goes beyond the mere act of unauthorized copying and introduces a qualitatively distinct dimension of business misconduct.

Second, StreamNow engaged in competitive misconduct by leveraging unauthorized content to gain market share and undercut authorized licensees. The competitive harm element — the distortion of market pricing and the undermining of legitimate competitors who pay fair licensing fees — is not an element of copyright infringement and represents an independent basis of unfairness.

Third, StreamNow failed to conduct adequate due diligence on MDD's authority to grant distribution rights, despite numerous red flags that should have alerted StreamNow to the fraudulent nature of MDD's representations. These red flags include: (a) Ogilvie's former employment at Aurelius (which would have been apparent from any basic background check); (b) MDD's lack of any track record as a content distributor (having been formed only in late 2021 with no prior distribution credits); (c) the extraordinary scope of content purportedly available through MDD (217 titles from a major international media group, including its most valuable franchises, being offered through a single-member LLC with no industry presence); and (d) the absence of customary documentation such as chain-of-title certificates, licensor authorizations, or errors-and-omissions insurance. StreamNow's willful blindness to these red flags constitutes an independent element of business misconduct.

Fourth, the Section 17200 claim targets the broader market-distorting effects of StreamNow's conduct — effects that harm not just Aurelius but also authorized platforms competing with StreamNow for content and subscribers. This systemic competitive harm goes beyond the bilateral copyright relationship between copyright holder and infringer and implicates broader public policy concerns that Section 17200 is specifically designed to address.

C. Risk Assessment on Preemption

It is necessary to acknowledge that there is a non-trivial risk that a court could find the Section 17200 claim preempted, particularly to the extent the claim is framed as entirely derivative of the copyright claim and lacks a genuinely distinct factual predicate. If the court concludes that the "extra elements" identified above are merely incidental to the core act of unauthorized copying, rather than qualitatively transformative, the claim would be vulnerable to dismissal on preemption grounds.

StreamNow's counsel — Victoria Langford of Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP — is a sophisticated IP litigator who will almost certainly move to dismiss the Section 17200 claim as preempted at the earliest opportunity, likely in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Ms. Langford will argue that the claim is merely a repackaging of the copyright infringement claims under a state law label, and that the purported "extra elements" are insufficient to save the claim from preemption.

Mitigation. To mitigate the preemption risk, the Section 17200 claim should be carefully framed in the complaint to emphasize the competitive harm, deceptive business practices, and market-distortion elements that distinguish it from the copyright claims. The factual allegations supporting the Section 17200 claim should be pleaded with particularity, including detailed allegations regarding:

• StreamNow's content acquisition through MDD and Ogilvie, and the fraudulent nature of that relationship;

• StreamNow's knowledge of or willful blindness to the red flags surrounding MDD's purported authority;

• The specific competitive effects of StreamNow's conduct on Aurelius's authorized licensing relationships;

• The broader market-distorting impact of StreamNow's business model as applied to the Aurelius content; and

• StreamNow's presentation of unlicensed content as authorized.

Precedent supports the survival of Section 17200 claims where the "unlawful" prong borrows copyright infringement as a predicate but the claim also alleges broader unfair competitive conduct that goes beyond the scope of the Copyright Act's protections. The key is to ensure that the complaint clearly articulates the independent bases of unfairness and deception, and does not present the Section 17200 claim as merely redundant of the copyright claims.

D. Conclusion on Preemption

On balance, I conclude that the Section 17200 claim, properly framed around the unfair competitive dimension of StreamNow's conduct — acquiring content through a fraudulent intermediary, undercutting authorized licensees on price, distorting market competition, and misleading consumers and business partners regarding the authorized provenance of its content — contains sufficient "extra elements" to survive preemption under 17 U.S.C. § 301. The claim is qualitatively different from a pure copyright infringement claim because it targets business misconduct and competitive harm that are independent of, and go beyond, the mere unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of copyrighted works.

I recommend framing the Section 17200 claim primarily under the "unfair" prong, which most naturally encompasses the competitive harm and market-distortion allegations, with the "unlawful" prong serving as secondary support. The "unfair" prong framing reduces the preemption risk because it centers the claim on competitive misconduct — an element that has no analogue in copyright law — rather than on the act of unauthorized copying itself.

V. Available Remedies Under § 17200

A. Injunctive Relief

Section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code authorizes courts to "make such orders or judgments . . . as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment" of unfair competition practices. This broad grant of injunctive authority provides courts with substantial flexibility to fashion equitable relief tailored to the specific circumstances of each case.

Aurelius may seek an order under Section 17203 requiring StreamNow to permanently cease distributing all Aurelius content through its platform and through all sublicensed channels, including the four identified FAST channel operators (Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc.; BrightLoop Media, LLC; Velvet Stream Partners, LP; and Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd). In addition, Aurelius may seek an order requiring StreamNow to implement reasonable content acquisition due diligence procedures to prevent future unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content.

Injunctive relief under Section 17200 complements, and may in some ways be broader than, the injunctive relief available under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 502). While a copyright injunction is typically limited to prohibiting the infringement of specific copyrighted works, a Section 17200 injunction can reach the defendant's unfair competitive conduct more broadly. For example, a Section 17200 injunction could potentially prohibit StreamNow from acquiring content from any intermediary without first verifying that the intermediary has valid authorization from the content owner — an order that goes beyond the scope of a copyright injunction and that could benefit not only Aurelius but other content owners whose works might be at risk.

B. Restitution

Section 17203 also permits courts to order "restoration of money or property" to persons who have been victimized by unfair competition. Restitution under Section 17200 is a distinct remedy from "damages" — it focuses on disgorging from the defendant money or property that, in equity and good conscience, rightfully belongs to the plaintiff. See Glenrock Corporation, 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1148 (2003) (distinguishing restitution from non-restitutionary disgorgement and damages).

StreamNow received at least $38.6 million in revenue attributable to Aurelius content during the 22-month infringement period. A significant portion of this revenue may be recoverable as restitution, representing the licensing fees Aurelius would have received had StreamNow obtained a proper license. The restitutionary measure may be calculated in one of two ways, depending on equitable considerations and the court's assessment of the appropriate measure:

(i) Fair market value of a comparable license: Based on the Hargrove Economic Consulting Group's preliminary analysis, the fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month period in the relevant territories is $14.2 million. This measure represents the minimum amount that StreamNow obtained at Aurelius's expense by avoiding legitimate licensing costs.

(ii) Full attributable revenue: The total revenue of $38.6 million attributable to the Aurelius content during the infringement period may also be recoverable as restitution to the extent the court determines that the full amount represents money that, in equity and good conscience, belongs to Aurelius. This higher measure would be appropriate if the court finds that StreamNow's entire revenue stream from the Aurelius content was generated through unfair competitive practices.

Importantly, restitution under Section 17200 is distinct from the "actual damages plus profits" remedy available under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) of the Copyright Act, providing an alternative and potentially complementary recovery path. This distinction is particularly significant with respect to the 28 Aurelius titles for which copyright registrations were filed after the commencement of infringement (registered between May 2024 and October 2025). For these 28 titles, statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 are unavailable because the registrations were not made prior to the commencement of infringement or within three months of first publication, as required by 17 U.S.C. § 412. The Section 17200 restitution remedy provides an important alternative recovery mechanism for these titles, as Section 17200 does not condition recovery on the timing of copyright registration.

C. No Punitive Damages or Attorney's Fees

It should be noted that Section 17200 does not provide for punitive damages or the recovery of attorney's fees. This limitation is inherent in the statutory scheme and cannot be circumvented through creative pleading.

However, this limitation is not disqualifying and does not materially diminish the strategic value of including the Section 17200 claim. The primary Copyright Act claims provide the more substantial damages recovery — including potential statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) for the 189 timely-registered titles, as well as the potential recovery of attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Section 17200 claim is designed to complement the copyright claims, not to replace them, and its value lies primarily in the alternative recovery path for the late-registered titles and in the breadth of injunctive relief available.

VI. Supplemental Jurisdiction

The proposed forum for the contemplated action is the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. Federal subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claims exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides for original and exclusive federal jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under any Act of Congress relating to . . . copyrights."

Supplemental jurisdiction over the Section 17200 state law claim is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides that district courts "shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." The Section 17200 claim clearly forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal copyright claims, as it arises from the identical nucleus of operative facts — namely, StreamNow's unauthorized acquisition, distribution, and commercial exploitation of the 217 Aurelius titles over the 22-month period from April 2024 through January 2026. The factual predicates for the Section 17200 claim and the copyright claims overlap almost entirely, and the Section 17200 claim does not introduce a separate transaction or occurrence.

The court retains discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain enumerated circumstances, including where the state claim "raises a novel or complex issue of State law" (§ 1367(c)(1)), where the state claim "substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction" (§ 1367(c)(2)), or where the district court has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" (§ 1367(c)(3)). None of these circumstances are present here. The Section 17200 claim is a straightforward application of well-established California statutory law to the facts of this case; it does not raise novel or complex issues of state law and does not substantially predominate over the federal copyright claims, which remain the primary claims in the action.

As to personal jurisdiction, StreamNow is headquartered at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010, within the Central District of California. MDD is a California limited liability company with its registered address at 8912 Burton Way, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90211, also within the Central District. Both StreamNow and MDD are clearly subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California. Ogilvie, as the sole member and manager of MDD and a California resident, is likewise subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District.

VII. Strategic Value of the § 17200 Claim

A. Alternative and Backup Recovery Path

The Section 17200 claim provides an important additional avenue of recovery that operates independently of the Copyright Act claims. If any of the copyright claims are narrowed, dismissed, or otherwise limited during the course of the litigation — whether through a successful partial motion to dismiss, an adverse ruling on a summary judgment motion, or an unfavorable evidentiary ruling — the Section 17200 claim provides a fallback basis for recovery.

This fallback value is particularly significant with respect to the 28 titles for which copyright registrations were filed after the commencement of infringement. For these titles, statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 are unavailable, and Aurelius would be limited to actual damages and infringer's profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) on the copyright claims alone. Proving actual damages and allocating profits on a title-by-title basis can be challenging and may result in a reduced recovery for these titles. The restitution remedy under Section 17200, which does not depend on the timing of copyright registration and which allows recovery based on the broader unfair competitive conduct, provides a valuable alternative mechanism for recovering the full measure of Aurelius's losses attributable to these 28 titles.

B. Broader Injunctive Scope

As discussed in Section V.A above, a Section 17200 injunction can be broader in scope than a copyright injunction. While a copyright injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502 is typically limited to prohibiting the infringement of the specific copyrighted works at issue, a Section 17200 injunction can reach StreamNow's overall business practices and potentially prevent future similar conduct with respect to other content owners' materials — not just the 217 Aurelius titles. This broader injunctive scope can be particularly valuable in cases where, as here, the defendant's business model creates a systemic risk of recurring misconduct.

A broad Section 17200 injunction requiring StreamNow to implement content acquisition due diligence procedures, maintain chain-of-title documentation for all licensed content, and refrain from acquiring content from intermediaries without verified authorization from the content owner would provide structural protection against future infringement — protection that extends beyond what is available through the Copyright Act alone.

C. Leverage in Settlement

The inclusion of the Section 17200 claim in the contemplated complaint demonstrates the breadth of legal exposure that StreamNow faces and serves to increase Aurelius's leverage in any settlement negotiations. The Section 17200 claim signals that Aurelius is prepared to pursue the fullest range of available legal theories, and that the case is not limited to a straightforward copyright dispute that can be resolved through a simple licensing arrangement.

Moreover, an unfair competition finding under Section 17200 carries significant reputational and regulatory implications for StreamNow. Such a finding would establish that StreamNow engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices — a characterization that could adversely affect StreamNow's relationships with other content providers, with its downstream FAST channel sublicensees, and with its majority investor, Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP. Given that Pinnacle Ventures holds an approximately 62% fully diluted ownership stake in StreamNow and invested $145 million in the company's Series C round, Pinnacle has a direct financial interest in avoiding adverse findings that could impair StreamNow's business relationships, market reputation, and enterprise value. The reputational risk associated with the Section 17200 claim thus creates pressure on both StreamNow's management and its investors to seek a negotiated resolution.

D. Claims Against Multiple Defendants

The Section 17200 claim can be asserted against all three identified defendants — StreamNow, MDD, and Franklin Ogilvie — in a single action, providing a unified state-law basis for pursuing all defendants. This is particularly relevant for the claims against MDD and Ogilvie, where the Section 17200 "unlawful" prong can incorporate their breach of the June 30, 2021 separation agreement and their fraudulent representations to StreamNow regarding their purported authority to license Aurelius content as predicate unlawful acts.

The ability to pursue MDD and Ogilvie under Section 17200, in addition to any direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement, or common law fraud claims, strengthens Aurelius's position by ensuring that all parties responsible for the infringing scheme are held accountable through multiple legal theories.

E. Potential discovery Advantages

The Section 17200 claim may open additional avenues of discovery into StreamNow's broader business practices, content acquisition policies, and due diligence procedures. Discovery directed to the Section 17200 claim would be broader in scope than discovery limited to the copyright claims alone, as it would encompass StreamNow's overall approach to content acquisition — including its dealings with intermediaries other than MDD, its internal policies for verifying chain of title, and its knowledge of or indifference to the risks of acquiring content from unauthorized sources.

This broader discovery could yield evidence that is useful not only for the Section 17200 claim itself but also for establishing willfulness on the copyright claims. Evidence that StreamNow had no meaningful due diligence procedures in place, or that it routinely acquired content from intermediaries without verifying authorization, would support the inference that StreamNow acted with willful blindness or reckless disregard for Aurelius's copyrights — a finding that would unlock enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) for the 189 timely-registered titles.

VIII. Potential Challenges and Counterarguments

A. Preemption Motion by StreamNow

As discussed at length in Section IV above, StreamNow's counsel will almost certainly move to dismiss the Section 17200 claim as preempted by the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. § 301. Victoria Langford of Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP is an experienced IP litigator, and her team will be well-positioned to mount an aggressive preemption challenge, likely as part of a broader Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed early in the litigation.

Recommended Response: The opposition to any preemption motion should emphasize the "extra elements" that distinguish the Section 17200 claim from the copyright claims, as detailed in Section IV.B above. The brief should focus on the competitive harm, deceptive business practices, market distortion, and willful blindness elements of the claim, and should cite the substantial body of Ninth Circuit and California appellate authority supporting the survival of Section 17200 claims that target conduct going beyond mere unauthorized copying. The complaint itself should be drafted to foreground these extra elements, so that the claim is resistant to preemption challenges on the face of the pleading.

B. Standing Objections Post-Proposition 64

StreamNow may argue that Aurelius lacks standing to bring the Section 17200 claim under the heightened standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, which amended Section 17204 to require that the plaintiff demonstrate "injury in fact" and "loss of money or property" resulting from the unfair competition.

Recommended Response: Aurelius has clear and demonstrable standing under the post-Proposition 64 framework. Aurelius has suffered lost licensing revenue of at least $14.2 million, representing the fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month infringement period. In addition, Aurelius has experienced diminished market positioning and reduced licensing leverage with authorized platforms as a direct result of StreamNow's unauthorized distribution. These injuries are concrete, particularized, and directly traceable to StreamNow's challenged business practices. There is no reasonable basis for a standing challenge on these facts, and any such challenge should be summarily defeated.

C. Duplicative Recovery Concerns

The court may express concern about the possibility of double recovery if both copyright damages (under 17 U.S.C. § 504) and Section 17200 restitution (under Section 17203) are awarded for the same underlying conduct. StreamNow will argue that permitting recovery under both theories for the same acts of infringement would result in an impermissible windfall to Aurelius.

Recommended Response: Aurelius should make clear, both in the complaint and in any briefing on this issue, that it seeks non-duplicative relief. The recommended approach is as follows:

• For the 189 timely-registered titles, Aurelius should pursue statutory or actual damages and infringer's profits under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 504), along with attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

• For the 28 late-registered titles, Aurelius should pursue restitution under Section 17200 as the primary recovery mechanism, given the unavailability of statutory damages and attorney's fees under the Copyright Act for these titles.

• With respect to injunctive relief, Aurelius should seek both copyright injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502 (addressing the specific copyrighted works) and broader Section 17200 injunctive relief (addressing StreamNow's overall business practices and due diligence procedures).

Appropriate accounting measures can be implemented to ensure that there is no overlap in monetary recovery. The court can be assured that Aurelius will not seek to recover twice for the same loss and that the Section 17200 restitution claim is directed specifically at the recovery gap created by the late registrations.

IX. Recommendations

Based on the foregoing analysis, I make the following recommendations:

1. Include the Section 17200 claim as a supplemental cause of action in the draft complaint currently being prepared for contingent filing in June 2026 if settlement negotiations with StreamNow fail. The claim should be included as an additional count alongside the federal copyright infringement claims, with supplemental jurisdiction invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

2. Frame the claim primarily under the "unfair" prong of Section 17200, with the "unlawful" prong providing secondary support. This framing maximizes the claim's resistance to preemption by centering it on competitive harm, deceptive business practices, and market-distortion elements that constitute the requisite "extra elements" beyond copyright infringement. The "fraudulent" prong should be pleaded as a tertiary basis.

3. Plead with specificity the distinct unfair competitive conduct that distinguishes the Section 17200 claim from the copyright claims. The complaint should contain detailed factual allegations regarding StreamNow's acquisition of content through the fraudulent intermediary MDD/Ogilvie, StreamNow's failure to conduct due diligence despite conspicuous red flags, StreamNow's undercutting of Aurelius's authorized licensees on price, and StreamNow's deceptive presentation of unlicensed content as authorized.

4. Assert the claim against all defendants — StreamNow Holdings, Inc., Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC, and Franklin Ogilvie — to ensure that all parties responsible for the infringing scheme are subject to Section 17200 liability.

5. Seek restitution and broad injunctive relief under Section 17203. Restitution should be sought in an amount equal to either the $14.2 million fair market licensing value or the $38.6 million in attributable revenue, as appropriate under the equitable circumstances, with the restitution claim focused particularly on recovery for the 28 late-registered titles. Injunctive relief should be sought in the broadest permissible form, including an order requiring StreamNow to permanently cease distributing all Aurelius content and to implement content acquisition due diligence procedures.

6. Coordinate with Wendy Schultz and the pre-suit assessment memorandum (scheduled for March 7, 2026) to ensure consistency in the overall claim presentation, damages framework, and remedies allocation across all causes of action.

7. This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the following companion memoranda and analyses:

• Copyright Infringement Claim Analysis (dated March 3, 2026)

• DMCA Safe Harbor Non-Applicability Memorandum (dated March 4, 2026)

• Willfulness Analysis Memorandum (dated March 4, 2026)

• Damages Analysis Memorandum (in preparation; target date March 6, 2026, incorporating Hargrove Economic Consulting Group's preliminary model)

I am available to discuss the analysis and recommendations in this memorandum at your convenience and would welcome the opportunity to do so prior to the March 7 pre-suit assessment session. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or requests for further research.

Omar Siddiqui Associate

Appendix: Attachments and Authorities Referenced

The following materials are referenced in this memorandum and are attached hereto or available upon request:

A. Statutory Authorities

1. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200–17210 (full text)

2. 17 U.S.C. § 301 (Copyright Act preemption)

3. 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 412, 501, 502, 504, 505

4. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338, 1367

B. Key Ninth Circuit and California Authorities on § 17200 Preemption in Copyright Cases

1. Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998)

2. Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006)

3. Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004)

4. Summit Machine Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Systems, Inc., 7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993)

5. Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005)

6. Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)

7. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999)

8. Glenrock Corporation, 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003)

C. Factual Materials

1. Summary of 28 Late-Registered Titles (cross-reference Copyright Registration Summary Report prepared from Lexington IP Services, Inc. data, Marissa Chung, search completed January 22, 2026)

2. CipherTrace Analytics Forensic Revenue Attribution Summary ($38.6 million total: $22.4M subscription + $9.7M AVOD + $6.5M sublicensing)

3. Hargrove Economic Consulting Group Preliminary Damages Model (lost licensing revenue of $14.2 million; net recoverable damages of $41.3 million), prepared under the supervision of Dr. Elena Vasquez

This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. It is prepared solely for the use of the attorneys and client identified above in connection with Matter No. 1017-00003 and should not be disclosed to any third party without the express authorization of Marcus Delgado, Partner.

Revenue Category	Amount
Subscription revenue	$22,400,000
AVOD advertising revenue	$9,700,000
FAST sublicensing fees	$6,500,000
Total attributable revenue	$38,600,000

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
TO: Marcus Delgado, Partner; Wendy Schultz, Senior Associate
FROM: Omar Siddiqui, Associate
DATE: March 5, 2026
RE: Viability of Supplemental State Law Claim Under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC v. StreamNow Holdings, Inc. et al.
Matter No.: 1017-00003
Client: Aurelius Global Media Group PLC
I. Executive Summary
This memorandum analyzes the viability of asserting a supplemental state unfair competition claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 against StreamNow Holdings, Inc. ("StreamNow"), a Delaware corporation headquartered at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010, and potentially Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD"), a California limited liability company (SOS File No. 202115729430) with its registered address at 8912 Burton Way, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90211, and MDD's sole member and manager, Franklin Ogilvie. This memorandum supplements the Copyright Infringement Claim Analysis dated March 3, 2026, the DMCA Safe Harbor Non-Applicability Memorandum dated March 4, 2026, and the Willfulness Analysis Memorandum also dated March 4, 2026, and should be read in conjunction with each of those prior memoranda.
Based on my analysis of the applicable statutory framework, relevant Ninth Circuit and California appellate authority, and the factual record as presently understood, I conclude as follows:
StreamNow's unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of 217 Aurelius-owned audiovisual works over an approximately 22-month period (from approximately April 1, 2024 through January 31, 2026), generating an estimated $38.6 million in attributable revenue, constitutes an unlawful and unfair business practice actionable under Section 17200. The conduct at issue — acquiring content through a fraudulent intermediary with no actual authority to license, commercially exploiting that content to undercut authorized licensees, and presenting unlicensed content to consumers as though properly authorized — goes well beyond mere copyright infringement and implicates the competitive harm and deceptive business practice dimensions that Section 17200 is specifically designed to address.
The Section 17200 claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act because it targets conduct beyond mere reproduction — specifically, the unfair competitive dimension of StreamNow's business practices, the deceptive nature of its content acquisition through MDD and Ogilvie, and the broader market-distorting effects of its unauthorized distribution. The claim contains sufficient "extra elements" to survive a preemption challenge under 17 U.S.C. § 301, though this assessment is not free from risk and careful pleading will be required.
Remedies available under Section 17200 — restitution and injunctive relief — complement and are not duplicative of the remedies available under the Copyright Act. Restitution under Section 17203 may prove particularly valuable with respect to the 28 titles for which copyright registrations were made after infringement commenced (registered between May 2024 and October 2025), and for which statutory damages and attorney's fees are therefore unavailable under the Copyright Act. Injunctive relief under Section 17200 may also prove broader in scope than a copyright injunction, potentially reaching StreamNow's overall business practices and preventing future similar conduct with respect to other content owners' materials.
Recommendation: Include the Section 17200 claim as a supplemental cause of action in the contemplated complaint to be filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division), exercising supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The claim should be framed primarily under the "unfair" prong of Section 17200, with the "unlawful" prong providing secondary support, and should be asserted against all three defendants — StreamNow, MDD, and Franklin Ogilvie. The claim should be pleaded with specificity to emphasize the extra elements of competitive harm, deceptive business practices, and market distortion that distinguish it from the federal copyright claims.
II. Background Facts
A. The Parties
1. Aurelius Global Media Group PLC
Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("Aurelius" or "AGMG") is a public limited company incorporated in England and Wales under Companies House Registration Number 08724561, with its principal offices located at 45 Clarewood Place, London W1K 6TH, United Kingdom. Aurelius is a diversified media and entertainment conglomerate with fiscal year 2025 revenue of approximately £1.87 billion (approximately $2.36 billion at a conversion rate of £1 = $1.26). Aurelius's ordinary shares are listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AIM: AGLM, and American Depositary Receipts representing Aurelius's ordinary shares are traded over-the-counter in the United States. Aurelius's content library encompasses over 4,200 film and television titles spanning multiple genres and languages, and the company is recognized as one of the premier independent media groups operating globally.
2. Aurelius Media Americas, Inc.
Aurelius Media Americas, Inc. ("AMA") is a wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary of AGMG, with its principal place of business located at 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, California 90067. AMA holds and administers United States copyright registrations for certain Aurelius titles and functions as the primary operational entity for Aurelius's North American distribution, licensing, and enforcement activities. AMA is the registered copyright claimant for the majority of the 217 titles at issue in this matter.
3. StreamNow Holdings, Inc.
StreamNow Holdings, Inc. ("StreamNow" or "SNH") is a Delaware corporation (File No. 7291843), with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010. StreamNow was founded in 2019 and remains privately held. StreamNow's majority equity holder is Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP, which holds an approximately 62% fully diluted ownership stake following its $145 million Series C investment, the closing of which occurred in June 2022. The general partner of Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP is Pinnacle Ventures Management III, LLC, headquartered at 101 California Street, Suite 3500, San Francisco, California 94111; the managing partner of Pinnacle Ventures Management III, LLC is Howard Cheng. StreamNow's estimated fiscal year 2025 revenue is approximately $312 million.
StreamNow operates what it describes as a "super-aggregator" streaming platform, which bundles content from multiple studios and independent distributors into subscription-based and advertising-supported ("AVOD") viewing interfaces available to consumers in 14 countries. In addition to its direct-to-consumer offerings, StreamNow sublicenses curated content bundles to third-party Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television ("FAST") channel operators, generating sublicensing fees as a distinct revenue stream.
StreamNow's key officers include: Derek Calloway, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder; Priya Menon, Chief Operating Officer and Co-Founder; Tobias Rennert, General Counsel; and Sandra Yee, Vice President of Content Acquisition. StreamNow's outside litigation counsel is Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP, located at 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90071, with Victoria Langford (IP Litigation partner) as lead counsel and Brian Matsuda as the primary associate on the matter.
4. Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC
Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD") is a California limited liability company, formed in late 2021 and registered with the California Secretary of State under File Number 202115729430, with its registered address at 8912 Burton Way, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90211. MDD's sole member and manager is Franklin Ogilvie.
Ogilvie is a former mid-level licensing manager at AMA, where he was employed from approximately 2017 through June 30, 2021. Ogilvie's employment with AMA was terminated following an internal investigation into unauthorized access to Aurelius's content management systems. The investigation, conducted by Aurelius's internal audit team with assistance from outside cybersecurity consultants, revealed that Ogilvie had accessed restricted licensing databases and content metadata repositories without authorization in the months preceding his termination. Ogilvie's June 30, 2021 separation agreement with AMA included, among other provisions, non-compete and non-solicitation covenants, as well as an explicit prohibition on the use of any Aurelius intellectual property, proprietary information, or confidential business data. Despite these contractual obligations, within approximately six months of his separation, Ogilvie formed MDD and began representing to third parties — including StreamNow — that MDD had authority to distribute Aurelius content.
B. The Infringing Conduct
StreamNow ingested a total of 217 Aurelius-owned titles into its streaming platform and made them available for consumer viewing without authorization from Aurelius, AMA, or any other authorized Aurelius entity. The 217 titles comprise 142 feature films and 75 television series encompassing a total of 1,038 individual episodes. The works span a broad cross-section of Aurelius's most valuable and commercially significant content properties.
Among the key franchises and titles affected by StreamNow's unauthorized distribution are the following:
• The "Meridian" franchise, consisting of six feature films that have generated a combined $1.43 billion in global box office revenue. The Meridian franchise is one of Aurelius's flagship properties and among the most commercially valuable film franchises originated by a European studio. The unauthorized availability of these films on StreamNow's platform directly undermined Aurelius's ongoing exclusive licensing arrangements with authorized streaming platforms.
• The "Iron Compass" series, a critically acclaimed espionage drama comprising four seasons and 48 episodes, which averaged 9.2 million viewers per episode during its original United Kingdom broadcast run. Iron Compass has been the subject of premium exclusive licensing deals with major streaming platforms in the United States and internationally, and Aurelius has consistently commanded top-tier licensing fees for this property.
• The "Thornfield" period drama catalog, consisting of 12 titles that have collectively won seven BAFTA awards. The Thornfield catalog represents a distinctive and highly curated body of work that commands premium licensing rates in the prestige drama market segment.
StreamNow claims that it obtained distribution rights to the Aurelius content through a Content Distribution Agreement with MDD, purportedly dated March 15, 2024. This claim was articulated in an email from Sandra Yee (StreamNow's VP of Content Acquisition) to Aurelius's external counsel, dated November 3, 2025, in response to Aurelius's initial cease-and-desist correspondence. Aurelius's records, however, confirm unequivocally that it never granted MDD any license, sublicense, distribution authority, or other right to distribute any Aurelius content. MDD is not and has never been an authorized distributor of Aurelius content. The purported authority on which MDD relied to enter into the Content Distribution Agreement with StreamNow was entirely fabricated.
In addition to making the Aurelius content available directly on its own platform, StreamNow sublicensed content bundles containing Aurelius titles to four third-party FAST channel operators:
(i) Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc., a corporation based in Dallas, Texas;
(ii) BrightLoop Media, LLC, a limited liability company based in Miami, Florida;
(iii) Velvet Stream Partners, LP, a limited partnership based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and
(iv) Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd, a proprietary limited company based in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The period of infringement extends approximately 22 months, from approximately April 1, 2024 (when the first Aurelius titles began appearing on StreamNow's platform) through January 31, 2026 (when StreamNow removed the remaining Aurelius titles following Aurelius's formal demand and threat of litigation).
Based on the forensic revenue attribution analysis performed by CipherTrace Analytics, the total revenue attributable to Aurelius content during the infringement period is estimated at $38.6 million, broken down as follows:
The infringement was discovered by Lena Kowalski, Head of Digital Rights Enforcement at Aurelius, who identified Aurelius titles on StreamNow's platform on October 15, 2025 during routine monitoring of unauthorized distribution channels. Ms. Kowalski escalated the matter to Fiona Hartwell, General Counsel of Aurelius, on October 22, 2025, after completing an initial scope assessment confirming the breadth of the unauthorized availability.
C. Competitive Harm
StreamNow's unauthorized availability of Aurelius content at lower price points — both through StreamNow's own subscription and AVOD tiers and through the downstream FAST channel sublicensees — has demonstrably reduced Aurelius's licensing leverage with authorized platforms. Aurelius's business development team has reported that at least two authorized platform partners have cited the availability of Aurelius content on StreamNow as a basis for seeking reduced licensing fees in current renewal negotiations. This competitive harm extends beyond Aurelius itself to the broader content licensing marketplace, as StreamNow's ability to offer premium content without paying legitimate licensing fees distorts market pricing and creates an uneven competitive playing field.
The fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month infringement period in the relevant territories has been estimated at $14.2 million, based on Aurelius's existing licensing agreements with authorized platforms for comparable content, adjusted for territory, term, and distribution channel. This estimate was prepared as part of a preliminary analysis by Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC, under the supervision of Dr. Elena Vasquez, and is subject to refinement as additional discovery is obtained. Dr. Vasquez's preliminary model further estimates total net recoverable damages of $41.3 million when combined with disgorgement of StreamNow's profits attributable to the infringement.
III. Elements of a § 17200 Claim
A. Statutory Framework
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 defines "unfair competition" broadly to include "any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising." The statute provides an expansive and flexible framework for addressing competitive misconduct and is widely recognized as one of the most powerful tools in California's consumer protection and business regulation arsenal.
Critically, Section 17200 is disjunctive: a challenged business practice need only satisfy one of the three substantive prongs — unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent — to be actionable. See Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) ("Because Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition — acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent."). A plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that all three prongs are satisfied; a single prong suffices.
Standing. Following the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2004, standing to bring a private action under Section 17200 is limited to any person or entity that has "suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition." Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. This standing requirement imposes a causation element, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's unfair business practice caused the plaintiff's economic injury.
Aurelius satisfies the standing requirements of Section 17204 as amended. Aurelius has suffered a demonstrable injury in fact consisting of lost licensing revenue of at least $14.2 million — the fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month infringement period — and has experienced diminished competitive positioning in the content licensing marketplace directly resulting from StreamNow's unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content. These economic injuries are concrete, particularized, and directly traceable to StreamNow's challenged business practices. There is no reasonable basis for a standing challenge on these facts.
B. "Unlawful" Prong
The "unlawful" prong of Section 17200 "borrows" violations of other laws — federal, state, or local — and treats them as independently actionable as unfair competition. See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 377, 383 (1992) ("By proscribing 'any unlawful' business practice, section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as independently actionable."). Virtually any law — criminal, civil, statutory, regulatory, or common law — can serve as the predicate for an "unlawful" prong claim, provided that the defendant's conduct violates the predicate law.
StreamNow's conduct violates multiple federal and state laws, providing a robust basis for the "unlawful" prong:
First, StreamNow's conduct constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 through the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of 217 copyrighted audiovisual works. The federal copyright violation provides a clear and well-established predicate unlawful act for purposes of the Section 17200 "unlawful" prong.
Second, StreamNow's conduct arguably violates the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law principles of unfair competition by misleading consumers regarding the authorized provenance of the content available on its platform. By presenting Aurelius content as if it were properly licensed and authorized for distribution, StreamNow created a false impression regarding the source and authorization of the content — a form of false designation of origin.
Third, as to MDD and Ogilvie specifically, their conduct in purporting to license content they had no authority to distribute constitutes fraud and breach of the June 30, 2021 separation agreement — violations of California common law and contractual obligations that independently serve as predicate unlawful acts.
The "unlawful" prong represents the strongest and most straightforward basis for the Section 17200 claim. The predicate copyright violations are clear-cut, and the borrowing mechanism of the "unlawful" prong does not require Aurelius to establish any additional elements beyond the underlying violation itself.
C. "Unfair" Prong
The "unfair" prong of Section 17200 operates independently of any violation of another law and targets business practices that, while not necessarily illegal, are nonetheless unfair. California courts have applied different tests for determining whether a practice is "unfair" depending on the context of the case:
In competitor cases (where the plaintiff is a business competitor rather than a consumer), the California Supreme Court in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 186–87 (1999), adopted a "tethering" or "balancing" test, requiring that the challenged practice be "tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some actual or threatened impact on competition." More broadly, the court examines whether the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff and the public outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct.
In consumer cases, courts have applied alternative formulations, including the test articulated in South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861, 886 (1999), which asks whether the practice (1) threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, (2) violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or (3) otherwise significantly threatens or injures consumers.
Application to the Present Facts. StreamNow's conduct satisfies the "unfair" prong under any of the applicable tests. StreamNow acquired and commercially exploited premium audiovisual content through an unauthorized intermediary — MDD, controlled by a former Aurelius employee who had been terminated for unauthorized access to Aurelius's content management systems and who had expressly agreed not to use Aurelius intellectual property. StreamNow then leveraged this unlicensed content to gain significant competitive advantage in the streaming marketplace by offering premium properties — including the Meridian franchise, the Iron Compass series, and the Thornfield catalog — without incurring the licensing costs that authorized competitors must bear.
By avoiding legitimate licensing fees, StreamNow was able to undercut Aurelius's authorized licensees on price, offering consumers access to high-value content at artificially low subscription rates or through free advertising-supported tiers. This pricing advantage was built entirely on the wrongful acquisition of content and created competitive harm that extends beyond the copyright holder to the broader content distribution market. Authorized platforms that paid fair market rates for licensed content were forced to compete against a rival that had obtained the same or comparable content at no cost, distorting market pricing signals and undermining the incentive structure that underpins the entire content licensing ecosystem.
The harm to Aurelius — consisting of $14.2 million in lost licensing revenue, $38.6 million in diverted revenue, and diminished competitive positioning in ongoing licensing negotiations — vastly outweighs any utility of StreamNow's conduct. StreamNow's purported utility — making content more widely available to consumers — is entirely illegitimate when the content was obtained through fraud and without authorization. No legitimate competitive interest is served by permitting a market participant to free-ride on another's intellectual property to gain market share.
D. "Fraudulent" Prong
The "fraudulent" prong of Section 17200 requires a showing that members of the public are "likely to be deceived" by the challenged business practice. See Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal. 3d 197, 211 (1983). Unlike common law fraud, the "fraudulent" prong does not require proof of actual deception, reliance, or damages — it is sufficient to show that the practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.
StreamNow presented Aurelius's content on its platform — including prominent franchise titles bearing Aurelius's distinctive branding, logos, and credit sequences — as if properly licensed and authorized for distribution. Consumers viewing Aurelius titles on StreamNow would reasonably understand that StreamNow had obtained the necessary rights to distribute the content, when in fact it had not. This misrepresentation, while implicit rather than explicit, is sufficient to establish that members of the public were likely to be deceived regarding the authorized provenance of the content.
The "fraudulent" prong may be viable, but I assess it as the weakest of the three prongs for purposes of this claim. The implicit nature of the deception — StreamNow did not make affirmative false statements about its licensing, but rather created a misleading impression through the act of distribution itself — introduces some uncertainty regarding the strength of this prong. The "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs provide more straightforward and reliable paths to liability, and I recommend that the "fraudulent" prong, while pleaded in the complaint, be positioned as a tertiary basis for the claim.
IV. Federal Preemption Analysis
A. Copyright Act Preemption Under 17 U.S.C. § 301
The most significant legal obstacle to the Section 17200 claim is the potential for federal preemption under Section 301 of the Copyright Act. Section 301(a) provides that:
"[A]ll legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 . . . are governed exclusively by this title. . . . [N]o person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State."
The preemption analysis under Section 301 involves a two-part test. See Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2006). First, the court asks whether the work at issue falls within the subject matter of copyright as specified in Sections 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act. Second, the court asks whether the right asserted under state law is "equivalent to" any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by Section 106.
As to the first prong, the works at issue — 217 audiovisual works comprising feature films and television series — clearly fall within the subject matter of copyright. Audiovisual works are expressly enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(6) as a category of copyrightable works. This prong of the preemption analysis is satisfied without question.
The critical question, therefore, is the second prong: whether the Section 17200 claim asserts rights that are "equivalent to" the exclusive rights under Section 106 — specifically, the rights of reproduction (§ 106(1)), distribution (§ 106(3)), and public performance (§ 106(4)) — or whether the claim contains qualitatively different elements that distinguish it from a copyright infringement claim.
B. The "Extra Element" Test
The Ninth Circuit and other federal courts apply the "extra element" test to determine equivalence under Section 301(a). Under this test, a state law claim survives preemption if it contains an "extra element" that changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim. See Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 1998); Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004). The "extra element" must transform the nature of the claim, not merely add a quantitative difference.
Courts in the Ninth Circuit and California state courts have addressed the preemption question specifically in the context of Section 17200 claims in copyright cases. The case law establishes that a Section 17200 claim predicated on conduct that goes beyond mere copying — i.e., a claim that alleges an independent basis of unfairness or deception in the defendant's business practices — can survive preemption if it contains an "extra element" beyond the rights protected by copyright. See, e.g., Summit Machine Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Systems, Inc., 7 F.3d 1434, 1440 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing extra element analysis in the context of state unfair competition claims); Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1089–90 (9th Cir. 2005).
Conversely, where a Section 17200 claim is based solely and entirely on the act of unauthorized copying, with no additional element of unfairness or deception beyond the copying itself, the claim is preempted. See Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (discussing preemption of state claims based on unauthorized use of creative works).
Application. The Section 17200 claim as contemplated here contains several "extra elements" that make it qualitatively different from the federal copyright infringement claims:
First, StreamNow engaged in deceptive business practices by presenting unlicensed content to consumers and business partners as authorized. This element of deception — the creation of a false impression of legitimacy — goes beyond the mere act of unauthorized copying and introduces a qualitatively distinct dimension of business misconduct.
Second, StreamNow engaged in competitive misconduct by leveraging unauthorized content to gain market share and undercut authorized licensees. The competitive harm element — the distortion of market pricing and the undermining of legitimate competitors who pay fair licensing fees — is not an element of copyright infringement and represents an independent basis of unfairness.
Third, StreamNow failed to conduct adequate due diligence on MDD's authority to grant distribution rights, despite numerous red flags that should have alerted StreamNow to the fraudulent nature of MDD's representations. These red flags include: (a) Ogilvie's former employment at Aurelius (which would have been apparent from any basic background check); (b) MDD's lack of any track record as a content distributor (having been formed only in late 2021 with no prior distribution credits); (c) the extraordinary scope of content purportedly available through MDD (217 titles from a major international media group, including its most valuable franchises, being offered through a single-member LLC with no industry presence); and (d) the absence of customary documentation such as chain-of-title certificates, licensor authorizations, or errors-and-omissions insurance. StreamNow's willful blindness to these red flags constitutes an independent element of business misconduct.
Fourth, the Section 17200 claim targets the broader market-distorting effects of StreamNow's conduct — effects that harm not just Aurelius but also authorized platforms competing with StreamNow for content and subscribers. This systemic competitive harm goes beyond the bilateral copyright relationship between copyright holder and infringer and implicates broader public policy concerns that Section 17200 is specifically designed to address.
C. Risk Assessment on Preemption
It is necessary to acknowledge that there is a non-trivial risk that a court could find the Section 17200 claim preempted, particularly to the extent the claim is framed as entirely derivative of the copyright claim and lacks a genuinely distinct factual predicate. If the court concludes that the "extra elements" identified above are merely incidental to the core act of unauthorized copying, rather than qualitatively transformative, the claim would be vulnerable to dismissal on preemption grounds.
StreamNow's counsel — Victoria Langford of Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP — is a sophisticated IP litigator who will almost certainly move to dismiss the Section 17200 claim as preempted at the earliest opportunity, likely in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Ms. Langford will argue that the claim is merely a repackaging of the copyright infringement claims under a state law label, and that the purported "extra elements" are insufficient to save the claim from preemption.
Mitigation. To mitigate the preemption risk, the Section 17200 claim should be carefully framed in the complaint to emphasize the competitive harm, deceptive business practices, and market-distortion elements that distinguish it from the copyright claims. The factual allegations supporting the Section 17200 claim should be pleaded with particularity, including detailed allegations regarding:
• StreamNow's content acquisition through MDD and Ogilvie, and the fraudulent nature of that relationship;
• StreamNow's knowledge of or willful blindness to the red flags surrounding MDD's purported authority;
• The specific competitive effects of StreamNow's conduct on Aurelius's authorized licensing relationships;
• The broader market-distorting impact of StreamNow's business model as applied to the Aurelius content; and
• StreamNow's presentation of unlicensed content as authorized.
Precedent supports the survival of Section 17200 claims where the "unlawful" prong borrows copyright infringement as a predicate but the claim also alleges broader unfair competitive conduct that goes beyond the scope of the Copyright Act's protections. The key is to ensure that the complaint clearly articulates the independent bases of unfairness and deception, and does not present the Section 17200 claim as merely redundant of the copyright claims.
D. Conclusion on Preemption
On balance, I conclude that the Section 17200 claim, properly framed around the unfair competitive dimension of StreamNow's conduct — acquiring content through a fraudulent intermediary, undercutting authorized licensees on price, distorting market competition, and misleading consumers and business partners regarding the authorized provenance of its content — contains sufficient "extra elements" to survive preemption under 17 U.S.C. § 301. The claim is qualitatively different from a pure copyright infringement claim because it targets business misconduct and competitive harm that are independent of, and go beyond, the mere unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of copyrighted works.
I recommend framing the Section 17200 claim primarily under the "unfair" prong, which most naturally encompasses the competitive harm and market-distortion allegations, with the "unlawful" prong serving as secondary support. The "unfair" prong framing reduces the preemption risk because it centers the claim on competitive misconduct — an element that has no analogue in copyright law — rather than on the act of unauthorized copying itself.
V. Available Remedies Under § 17200
A. Injunctive Relief
Section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code authorizes courts to "make such orders or judgments . . . as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment" of unfair competition practices. This broad grant of injunctive authority provides courts with substantial flexibility to fashion equitable relief tailored to the specific circumstances of each case.
Aurelius may seek an order under Section 17203 requiring StreamNow to permanently cease distributing all Aurelius content through its platform and through all sublicensed channels, including the four identified FAST channel operators (Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc.; BrightLoop Media, LLC; Velvet Stream Partners, LP; and Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd). In addition, Aurelius may seek an order requiring StreamNow to implement reasonable content acquisition due diligence procedures to prevent future unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content.
Injunctive relief under Section 17200 complements, and may in some ways be broader than, the injunctive relief available under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 502). While a copyright injunction is typically limited to prohibiting the infringement of specific copyrighted works, a Section 17200 injunction can reach the defendant's unfair competitive conduct more broadly. For example, a Section 17200 injunction could potentially prohibit StreamNow from acquiring content from any intermediary without first verifying that the intermediary has valid authorization from the content owner — an order that goes beyond the scope of a copyright injunction and that could benefit not only Aurelius but other content owners whose works might be at risk.
B. Restitution
Section 17203 also permits courts to order "restoration of money or property" to persons who have been victimized by unfair competition. Restitution under Section 17200 is a distinct remedy from "damages" — it focuses on disgorging from the defendant money or property that, in equity and good conscience, rightfully belongs to the plaintiff. See Glenrock Corporation, 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1148 (2003) (distinguishing restitution from non-restitutionary disgorgement and damages).
StreamNow received at least $38.6 million in revenue attributable to Aurelius content during the 22-month infringement period. A significant portion of this revenue may be recoverable as restitution, representing the licensing fees Aurelius would have received had StreamNow obtained a proper license. The restitutionary measure may be calculated in one of two ways, depending on equitable considerations and the court's assessment of the appropriate measure:
(i) Fair market value of a comparable license: Based on the Hargrove Economic Consulting Group's preliminary analysis, the fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month period in the relevant territories is $14.2 million. This measure represents the minimum amount that StreamNow obtained at Aurelius's expense by avoiding legitimate licensing costs.
(ii) Full attributable revenue: The total revenue of $38.6 million attributable to the Aurelius content during the infringement period may also be recoverable as restitution to the extent the court determines that the full amount represents money that, in equity and good conscience, belongs to Aurelius. This higher measure would be appropriate if the court finds that StreamNow's entire revenue stream from the Aurelius content was generated through unfair competitive practices.
Importantly, restitution under Section 17200 is distinct from the "actual damages plus profits" remedy available under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) of the Copyright Act, providing an alternative and potentially complementary recovery path. This distinction is particularly significant with respect to the 28 Aurelius titles for which copyright registrations were filed after the commencement of infringement (registered between May 2024 and October 2025). For these 28 titles, statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 are unavailable because the registrations were not made prior to the commencement of infringement or within three months of first publication, as required by 17 U.S.C. § 412. The Section 17200 restitution remedy provides an important alternative recovery mechanism for these titles, as Section 17200 does not condition recovery on the timing of copyright registration.
C. No Punitive Damages or Attorney's Fees
It should be noted that Section 17200 does not provide for punitive damages or the recovery of attorney's fees. This limitation is inherent in the statutory scheme and cannot be circumvented through creative pleading.
However, this limitation is not disqualifying and does not materially diminish the strategic value of including the Section 17200 claim. The primary Copyright Act claims provide the more substantial damages recovery — including potential statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) for the 189 timely-registered titles, as well as the potential recovery of attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Section 17200 claim is designed to complement the copyright claims, not to replace them, and its value lies primarily in the alternative recovery path for the late-registered titles and in the breadth of injunctive relief available.
VI. Supplemental Jurisdiction
The proposed forum for the contemplated action is the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. Federal subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claims exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides for original and exclusive federal jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under any Act of Congress relating to . . . copyrights."
Supplemental jurisdiction over the Section 17200 state law claim is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides that district courts "shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." The Section 17200 claim clearly forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal copyright claims, as it arises from the identical nucleus of operative facts — namely, StreamNow's unauthorized acquisition, distribution, and commercial exploitation of the 217 Aurelius titles over the 22-month period from April 2024 through January 2026. The factual predicates for the Section 17200 claim and the copyright claims overlap almost entirely, and the Section 17200 claim does not introduce a separate transaction or occurrence.
The court retains discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain enumerated circumstances, including where the state claim "raises a novel or complex issue of State law" (§ 1367(c)(1)), where the state claim "substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction" (§ 1367(c)(2)), or where the district court has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" (§ 1367(c)(3)). None of these circumstances are present here. The Section 17200 claim is a straightforward application of well-established California statutory law to the facts of this case; it does not raise novel or complex issues of state law and does not substantially predominate over the federal copyright claims, which remain the primary claims in the action.
As to personal jurisdiction, StreamNow is headquartered at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010, within the Central District of California. MDD is a California limited liability company with its registered address at 8912 Burton Way, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California 90211, also within the Central District. Both StreamNow and MDD are clearly subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California. Ogilvie, as the sole member and manager of MDD and a California resident, is likewise subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District.
VII. Strategic Value of the § 17200 Claim
A. Alternative and Backup Recovery Path
The Section 17200 claim provides an important additional avenue of recovery that operates independently of the Copyright Act claims. If any of the copyright claims are narrowed, dismissed, or otherwise limited during the course of the litigation — whether through a successful partial motion to dismiss, an adverse ruling on a summary judgment motion, or an unfavorable evidentiary ruling — the Section 17200 claim provides a fallback basis for recovery.
This fallback value is particularly significant with respect to the 28 titles for which copyright registrations were filed after the commencement of infringement. For these titles, statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 are unavailable, and Aurelius would be limited to actual damages and infringer's profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) on the copyright claims alone. Proving actual damages and allocating profits on a title-by-title basis can be challenging and may result in a reduced recovery for these titles. The restitution remedy under Section 17200, which does not depend on the timing of copyright registration and which allows recovery based on the broader unfair competitive conduct, provides a valuable alternative mechanism for recovering the full measure of Aurelius's losses attributable to these 28 titles.
B. Broader Injunctive Scope
As discussed in Section V.A above, a Section 17200 injunction can be broader in scope than a copyright injunction. While a copyright injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502 is typically limited to prohibiting the infringement of the specific copyrighted works at issue, a Section 17200 injunction can reach StreamNow's overall business practices and potentially prevent future similar conduct with respect to other content owners' materials — not just the 217 Aurelius titles. This broader injunctive scope can be particularly valuable in cases where, as here, the defendant's business model creates a systemic risk of recurring misconduct.
A broad Section 17200 injunction requiring StreamNow to implement content acquisition due diligence procedures, maintain chain-of-title documentation for all licensed content, and refrain from acquiring content from intermediaries without verified authorization from the content owner would provide structural protection against future infringement — protection that extends beyond what is available through the Copyright Act alone.
C. Leverage in Settlement
The inclusion of the Section 17200 claim in the contemplated complaint demonstrates the breadth of legal exposure that StreamNow faces and serves to increase Aurelius's leverage in any settlement negotiations. The Section 17200 claim signals that Aurelius is prepared to pursue the fullest range of available legal theories, and that the case is not limited to a straightforward copyright dispute that can be resolved through a simple licensing arrangement.
Moreover, an unfair competition finding under Section 17200 carries significant reputational and regulatory implications for StreamNow. Such a finding would establish that StreamNow engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices — a characterization that could adversely affect StreamNow's relationships with other content providers, with its downstream FAST channel sublicensees, and with its majority investor, Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP. Given that Pinnacle Ventures holds an approximately 62% fully diluted ownership stake in StreamNow and invested $145 million in the company's Series C round, Pinnacle has a direct financial interest in avoiding adverse findings that could impair StreamNow's business relationships, market reputation, and enterprise value. The reputational risk associated with the Section 17200 claim thus creates pressure on both StreamNow's management and its investors to seek a negotiated resolution.
D. Claims Against Multiple Defendants
The Section 17200 claim can be asserted against all three identified defendants — StreamNow, MDD, and Franklin Ogilvie — in a single action, providing a unified state-law basis for pursuing all defendants. This is particularly relevant for the claims against MDD and Ogilvie, where the Section 17200 "unlawful" prong can incorporate their breach of the June 30, 2021 separation agreement and their fraudulent representations to StreamNow regarding their purported authority to license Aurelius content as predicate unlawful acts.
The ability to pursue MDD and Ogilvie under Section 17200, in addition to any direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement, or common law fraud claims, strengthens Aurelius's position by ensuring that all parties responsible for the infringing scheme are held accountable through multiple legal theories.
E. Potential discovery Advantages
The Section 17200 claim may open additional avenues of discovery into StreamNow's broader business practices, content acquisition policies, and due diligence procedures. Discovery directed to the Section 17200 claim would be broader in scope than discovery limited to the copyright claims alone, as it would encompass StreamNow's overall approach to content acquisition — including its dealings with intermediaries other than MDD, its internal policies for verifying chain of title, and its knowledge of or indifference to the risks of acquiring content from unauthorized sources.
This broader discovery could yield evidence that is useful not only for the Section 17200 claim itself but also for establishing willfulness on the copyright claims. Evidence that StreamNow had no meaningful due diligence procedures in place, or that it routinely acquired content from intermediaries without verifying authorization, would support the inference that StreamNow acted with willful blindness or reckless disregard for Aurelius's copyrights — a finding that would unlock enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) for the 189 timely-registered titles.
VIII. Potential Challenges and Counterarguments
A. Preemption Motion by StreamNow
As discussed at length in Section IV above, StreamNow's counsel will almost certainly move to dismiss the Section 17200 claim as preempted by the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. § 301. Victoria Langford of Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP is an experienced IP litigator, and her team will be well-positioned to mount an aggressive preemption challenge, likely as part of a broader Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed early in the litigation.
Recommended Response: The opposition to any preemption motion should emphasize the "extra elements" that distinguish the Section 17200 claim from the copyright claims, as detailed in Section IV.B above. The brief should focus on the competitive harm, deceptive business practices, market distortion, and willful blindness elements of the claim, and should cite the substantial body of Ninth Circuit and California appellate authority supporting the survival of Section 17200 claims that target conduct going beyond mere unauthorized copying. The complaint itself should be drafted to foreground these extra elements, so that the claim is resistant to preemption challenges on the face of the pleading.
B. Standing Objections Post-Proposition 64
StreamNow may argue that Aurelius lacks standing to bring the Section 17200 claim under the heightened standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, which amended Section 17204 to require that the plaintiff demonstrate "injury in fact" and "loss of money or property" resulting from the unfair competition.
Recommended Response: Aurelius has clear and demonstrable standing under the post-Proposition 64 framework. Aurelius has suffered lost licensing revenue of at least $14.2 million, representing the fair market value of a comparable license for the 217 titles over the 22-month infringement period. In addition, Aurelius has experienced diminished market positioning and reduced licensing leverage with authorized platforms as a direct result of StreamNow's unauthorized distribution. These injuries are concrete, particularized, and directly traceable to StreamNow's challenged business practices. There is no reasonable basis for a standing challenge on these facts, and any such challenge should be summarily defeated.
C. Duplicative Recovery Concerns
The court may express concern about the possibility of double recovery if both copyright damages (under 17 U.S.C. § 504) and Section 17200 restitution (under Section 17203) are awarded for the same underlying conduct. StreamNow will argue that permitting recovery under both theories for the same acts of infringement would result in an impermissible windfall to Aurelius.
Recommended Response: Aurelius should make clear, both in the complaint and in any briefing on this issue, that it seeks non-duplicative relief. The recommended approach is as follows:
• For the 189 timely-registered titles, Aurelius should pursue statutory or actual damages and infringer's profits under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 504), along with attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
• For the 28 late-registered titles, Aurelius should pursue restitution under Section 17200 as the primary recovery mechanism, given the unavailability of statutory damages and attorney's fees under the Copyright Act for these titles.
• With respect to injunctive relief, Aurelius should seek both copyright injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502 (addressing the specific copyrighted works) and broader Section 17200 injunctive relief (addressing StreamNow's overall business practices and due diligence procedures).
Appropriate accounting measures can be implemented to ensure that there is no overlap in monetary recovery. The court can be assured that Aurelius will not seek to recover twice for the same loss and that the Section 17200 restitution claim is directed specifically at the recovery gap created by the late registrations.
IX. Recommendations
Based on the foregoing analysis, I make the following recommendations:
1. Include the Section 17200 claim as a supplemental cause of action in the draft complaint currently being prepared for contingent filing in June 2026 if settlement negotiations with StreamNow fail. The claim should be included as an additional count alongside the federal copyright infringement claims, with supplemental jurisdiction invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. Frame the claim primarily under the "unfair" prong of Section 17200, with the "unlawful" prong providing secondary support. This framing maximizes the claim's resistance to preemption by centering it on competitive harm, deceptive business practices, and market-distortion elements that constitute the requisite "extra elements" beyond copyright infringement. The "fraudulent" prong should be pleaded as a tertiary basis.
3. Plead with specificity the distinct unfair competitive conduct that distinguishes the Section 17200 claim from the copyright claims. The complaint should contain detailed factual allegations regarding StreamNow's acquisition of content through the fraudulent intermediary MDD/Ogilvie, StreamNow's failure to conduct due diligence despite conspicuous red flags, StreamNow's undercutting of Aurelius's authorized licensees on price, and StreamNow's deceptive presentation of unlicensed content as authorized.
4. Assert the claim against all defendants — StreamNow Holdings, Inc., Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC, and Franklin Ogilvie — to ensure that all parties responsible for the infringing scheme are subject to Section 17200 liability.
5. Seek restitution and broad injunctive relief under Section 17203. Restitution should be sought in an amount equal to either the $14.2 million fair market licensing value or the $38.6 million in attributable revenue, as appropriate under the equitable circumstances, with the restitution claim focused particularly on recovery for the 28 late-registered titles. Injunctive relief should be sought in the broadest permissible form, including an order requiring StreamNow to permanently cease distributing all Aurelius content and to implement content acquisition due diligence procedures.
6. Coordinate with Wendy Schultz and the pre-suit assessment memorandum (scheduled for March 7, 2026) to ensure consistency in the overall claim presentation, damages framework, and remedies allocation across all causes of action.
7. This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the following companion memoranda and analyses:
• Copyright Infringement Claim Analysis (dated March 3, 2026)
• DMCA Safe Harbor Non-Applicability Memorandum (dated March 4, 2026)
• Willfulness Analysis Memorandum (dated March 4, 2026)
• Damages Analysis Memorandum (in preparation; target date March 6, 2026, incorporating Hargrove Economic Consulting Group's preliminary model)
I am available to discuss the analysis and recommendations in this memorandum at your convenience and would welcome the opportunity to do so prior to the March 7 pre-suit assessment session. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or requests for further research.
Omar Siddiqui Associate
Appendix: Attachments and Authorities Referenced
The following materials are referenced in this memorandum and are attached hereto or available upon request:
A. Statutory Authorities
1. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200–17210 (full text)
2. 17 U.S.C. § 301 (Copyright Act preemption)
3. 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 412, 501, 502, 504, 505
4. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338, 1367
B. Key Ninth Circuit and California Authorities on § 17200 Preemption in Copyright Cases
1. Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998)
2. Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006)
3. Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004)
4. Summit Machine Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Systems, Inc., 7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993)
5. Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005)
6. Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
7. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999)
8. Glenrock Corporation, 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003)
C. Factual Materials
1. Summary of 28 Late-Registered Titles (cross-reference Copyright Registration Summary Report prepared from Lexington IP Services, Inc. data, Marissa Chung, search completed January 22, 2026)
2. CipherTrace Analytics Forensic Revenue Attribution Summary ($38.6 million total: $22.4M subscription + $9.7M AVOD + $6.5M sublicensing)
3. Hargrove Economic Consulting Group Preliminary Damages Model (lost licensing revenue of $14.2 million; net recoverable damages of $41.3 million), prepared under the supervision of Dr. Elena Vasquez
This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. It is prepared solely for the use of the attorneys and client identified above in connection with Matter No. 1017-00003 and should not be disclosed to any third party without the express authorization of Marcus Delgado, Partner.
Revenue Category | Amount
Subscription revenue | $22,400,000
AVOD advertising revenue | $9,700,000
FAST sublicensing fees | $6,500,000
Total attributable revenue | $38,600,000

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts