For years, especially when I was a teenager in the early to mid-2000s, people have asked me if I’m related to Fred Durst. I’m not, but as a nationwide and Ohio commercial litigation attorney, I found myself particularly interested in his recent lawsuit against Limp Bizkit’s former record label, Universal Music Group (UMG).
In October 2024, Fred Durst filed a $200 million lawsuit against UMG, accusing UMG of orchestrating a “stunning years-long scheme of underpaying royalties” to Limp Bizkit, despite Limp Bizkit’s significant resurgence in popularity and streaming success.
I wish Durst Kerridge could represent Fred Durst. The headlines would be awesome: Durst Kerridge rolls out… Perhaps I will reach out to his counsel to see if they need help. Fred is already in good hands, though—his lead counsel previously worked at one of the top business litigation firms in the world, a firm I have sought to emulate.
The lawsuit alleges that UMG deliberately manipulated revenues through various accounting practices, including by improperly categorizing certain streams as “singles” rather than “albums” and otherwise incorrectly applying the wrong contractual provisions. Durst claims these practices have cost the band millions in rightfully earned royalties.
In response, UMG has attempted to deflect responsibility by suggesting that any discrepancies may have been caused by legacy software systems previously used for royalty calculations.
Fred Durst’s case presents issues I frequently encounter in commercial litigation in Ohio and throughout the United States. At Durst Kerridge, we regularly represent clients in contract disputes involving commissions, fee-splitting and other similar arrangements, as well as various partnership and closely held business disputes. A recurring theme is that when one party controls the underlying data and calculations used to calculate payments due to the other party, there is significant potential for abuse. I have seen the Fred Durst/UMG scenario play out across numerous industries.
For example, we are currently litigating a payments industry case in California state court that perfectly illustrates this pattern. Our client, a sales agent for a payment processing company, was entitled to a percentage of the revenue derived from merchants he recruited to the company’s platform. For years, the company concealed that they were charging merchants an additional fee that was pure profit—a fee from which our client was contractually entitled to receive a percentage.
Our client only discovered the underpayment by chance when one of his merchants complained about the mysterious fee. Up to that point, our client had received only very limited data related to his monthly “residual” payment, which did not include a breakdown of all fees charged to the merchant or show how the residuals were calculated. The company later began providing a comprehensive monthly spreadsheet detailing all fees charged and showing precisely how residuals were calculated. Without that data, our client had no way to know he was being systematically underpaid.
The Fred Durst case follows a similar pattern. Allegedly, UMG failed to provide proper accounting statements and withheld critical information about streaming revenue calculations. Without access to this data, it was impossible for the band to know they were not receiving the correct royalty payments (and presumably, they assumed the record company was not cheating them). The lawsuit also claims that UMG has resisted efforts to audit the books.
Whether it’s a platinum-selling rock band’s recording contract or a sales agent’s commission structure, the principle remains the same: transparency is crucial.
Until next time, keep rollin’, rollin’, rollin’, rollin.
About Durst Kerridge
Durst Kerridge maintains an extensive commercial and complex civil litigation practice throughout Ohio and nationwide and regularly serves as Ohio local counsel. To schedule a consultation, contact Alex J. Durst or Paul R. Kerridge.
