Spotify and Major Labels Sue Anna's Archive Over Scraped Data Plan, Court Orders Domain Takedowns

A federal court in New York has granted a temporary restraining order against Anna's Archive, forcing the removal of several domains linked to the site. The legal action was initiated by Spotify and a coalition of major record labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group, in response to the archive's announced plans to release scraped Spotify data.

The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, centers on the site's intention to publish data obtained by scraping Spotify's platform. While the specific contents of the scraped data remain under seal, the labels argue that the release would constitute a massive infringement of copyrighted material and violate trade secret protections. The temporary order, granted by the court, is a preliminary measure aimed at preventing the immediate dissemination of the data while the case proceeds.

Anna's Archive, which presents itself as a meta-source for shadow libraries and book archives, has previously operated in a legal gray area by aggregating links to copyrighted material without hosting it directly. This case, however, represents a direct confrontation with the music industry's core data assets. The labels' legal strategy appears focused on preempting the data release, which could potentially expose sensitive information about user listening habits, song performance metrics, and internal Spotify algorithms.

The financial stakes for the music industry are substantial. Spotify alone paid out over $9 billion in royalties to rights holders in 2024, and the integrity of its data is crucial for calculating these payments. A leak of scraped data could disrupt royalty distributions, reveal competitive insights, and potentially enable manipulation of the platform's recommendation systems. For the labels, protecting this data is as critical as protecting the music itself.

This legal battle underscores a growing tension between open-access information projects and the proprietary data models of major tech platforms. While Anna's Archive and similar projects operate under the banner of information preservation and access, their methods increasingly clash with the data protection and monetization strategies of companies like Spotify. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how scraped data is treated under US copyright and trade secret law.

The temporary order is not a final judgment, but it signals the court's willingness to act swiftly to prevent potential harm. The case will now proceed to determine whether a permanent injunction is warranted. For the music industry, this is a defensive move to safeguard a key asset. For digital archivists and open-data advocates, it represents a significant challenge to their mission of democratizing information.

The lawsuit also highlights the evolving nature of digital piracy and data protection. In the past, the primary concern was unauthorized distribution of music files. Today, the battleground has expanded to include the data that describes how music is consumed, discovered, and monetized. As AI and data analytics become more central to the music business, the value—and vulnerability—of this data continues to grow.

Spotify's role as a data aggregator and distributor places it at the center of this conflict. The platform's recommendation algorithms, user analytics, and royalty calculations are all built on vast datasets. A breach of this data could not only harm Spotify's business model but also destabilize the entire ecosystem of artists, labels, and publishers that rely on its platform for revenue.

The labels' coordinated legal action demonstrates a unified front against what they perceive as a threat to their intellectual property and business operations. By taking Anna's Archive to court, they are sending a clear message that scraping and disseminating proprietary data will be met with aggressive legal resistance.

As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched by the tech industry, digital rights groups, and the music business. The ruling could influence how other platforms protect their data and how archivists and researchers approach the collection and sharing of information from commercial services. For now, the temporary order provides a reprieve for the labels, but the underlying conflict between open access and data protection is far from resolved.