Federal Judge Allows Musician's Third-Party Beneficiary Claim Against Amazon to Proceed

U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued an order on May 12 denying Amazon's motion for partial reconsideration of a March 13 opinion that permitted Marcel Albert, who performs as Marc Mysterio, to pursue his breach-of-contract claim. Albert alleged that Amazon "shadowbanned" his music, violating a distribution agreement between Amazon and the distributor DistroKid.

In the March 13 opinion, Failla found that Albert sufficiently pleaded he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the DistroKid-Amazon Audio Distribution Agreement. The court identified three factors supporting this status: the agreement recognized musicians would be "due" royalties; it included an indemnity provision requiring DistroKid to defend Amazon against third-party claims; and the circumstances showed DistroKid's intent to benefit musicians.

Amazon filed its motion for partial reconsideration in late March, arguing that the indemnity provision should be removed because it does not evince an intent to vest third parties with rights to sue. Amazon contended that Failla relied too heavily on this provision.

Failla rejected this argument, noting that the indemnity clause was only one factor in a broader analysis. She agreed with Amazon that the provision alone could not establish third-party beneficiary status, but clarified that it was not the sole basis for her ruling.

"The Court never suggested that it could, so there is no need to reconsider the March 13, 2026 Opinion on that ground," Failla wrote.

The judge explained that the indemnity provision acknowledged that third parties might sue Amazon, which helped confirm that the agreement did not explicitly foreclose such claims. While general indemnification clauses do not speak to intent to confer third-party beneficiary status, Failla maintained that the provision was relevant to understanding how the parties understood the agreement.

Amazon argued that the ruling placed contracting parties in an untenable position, forcing them to choose between seeking indemnity protections or risking third-party lawsuits. Failla denied the motion, directing the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 54.