ClicknClear Faces Investor Pushback Amid Licensing Uncertainty

ClicknClear’s revenue forecast as seen in a 2024 investor deck. Any questions?

“Choreographed sports” licensing specialist ClicknClear recently commanded headlines for securing a Universal Music Group deal. But internal documents and investor concerns are raising pressing questions about the company’s business model, revenue outlook, and overall footing.

We touched on those concerns last month, when breaking down a stateside lawsuit filed against London-based ClicknClear by Scottsdale’s Tresóna Multimedia. Having flown under the radar until our coverage, the suit, accusing ClicknClear of false advertising and more, was dismissed without prejudice.

But the battle over niche licensing platforms isn’t finished; Tresóna told Digital Music News that it intended to file an amended action. Following a couple reports about ClicknClear earlier in February, this would normally mark the story’s end until the retooled complaint is filed. 

Things changed when a self-described ClicknClear stakeholder reached out to Digital Music News with material doubts about – and a trove of primary documents relating to – the company. On the sender’s end, the sweeping disclosure was framed as an attempt at transparency amid mounting losses and alleged misrepresentations to investors. 

ClicknClear, on the other hand, doubled back, maintained that none of its investors had contacted DMN, and described it as “unusual that the source would repeat legal concerns from Tresona’s complaint.” However, only some of the lawsuit’s claims and the sender’s concerns overlap, and to state the obvious, it’s highly unlikely that a dismayed investor (or a non-investor third party) would admit to the disclosure. 

Subsequently, DMN learned that multiple ClicknClear investors were dissatisfied with the company.  Furthermore, we contacted ClicknClear for comment prior to publication, providing a detailed breakdown of this piece but not the actual text or the numbers therein. That’s because ClicknClear sought “a prior binding mutual agreement of the terms surrounding any potential such sharing” of allegedly confidential company information, and DMN declined.

“Trillions of Dollars of Copyright Infringement Risk”? An Overview of ClicknClear’s “Choreographed Sports” Licensing Model

Secondary details aside, the stage was set for a closer look at ClicknClear. The company, which was formed in 2016, is registered as Pre-Cleared Limited and, according to its website, specializes in “officially licensed music and compliance technology for choreographed sports, and performing arts.” 

Per the same site, and based on copies of ClicknClear’s agreements with sports federations, figure skating, gymnastics, equestrian performances, artistic swimming, cheerleading, and even competitive jump-roping fall into the choreographed sports and performing arts bucket. 

“ClicknClear focuses on choreographed sports,” ClicknClear founder Chantal Epp said during a due diligence call with HERmesa founder Marla Shapiro and others. “Choreographed sports being sports like dance, gymnastics, figure skating, [and] cheerleading, when music is intrinsic to the routine. So these sports edit and adapt music, choreograph to the music, and create copies to distribute between the team if it’s not an individual sport.”

According to execs, ClicknClear, leveraging agreements with the major labels, their publishers, and a multitude of other rightsholders, is uniquely positioned to help athletes lawfully use music in their routines. The majors hold warrants in ClicknClear and, unsurprisingly, have non-exclusive contracts containing advantageous terms; many indies appear to have exclusive deals in place.

Furthermore, the company’s website and multiple internal documents show that the focus is on prompting competitors themselves to license songs for actual events – not for broadcasts or, more expensively yet, replays.

“Gymnastics, figure skating, and sports like them face an existential threat, and my music-tech company, ClicknClear, is their only solution,” Epp said during an investor presentation. “We eliminate trillions of dollars of copyright infringement risk by licensing the billions of dollars of music needed by them each year.”

Especially for investors outside the industry, this might make for a compelling pitch. The music sector’s continued growth isn’t a secret, nor is its steady stream of incoming capital. At least in theory, then, with billions purportedly hanging in the balance, capitalizing on a heretofore untapped revenue source – a curiously overlooked revenue source at that – would be a no-brainer. 

Performance-Adjacent Licensing Questions Take Center Stage – And Raise Doubts About ClicknClear’s Core Offering

But things are murkier beneath the surface. First, the licensing requirements associated with once-off “choreographed sports” routines, despite claims from Epp to the contrary, aren’t black and white.

“Athletes at every level, in every country, are required to license music for their routines,” Epp said to investors. 

In the U.S. and the U.K., there isn’t a distinct license authorizing the incorporation of protected works into “choreographed sports,” nor is the definition of “choreographed” set in stone. Stateside, where there also isn’t a “neighbouring” right for the public use of recordings, performance rights organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP and BMI authorize the public use of musical works and compensate compositional rightsholders. 

Public performance blanket licenses cover a variety of uses – including during broadcasts, on digital platforms, and in physical establishments such as sports venues. But PROs themselves don’t deal in “grand rights” for the use of music in dramatic works – composers and publishers must directly sign off on those uses – and at a minimum, the line between dramatic and non-dramatic is difficult to pinpoint. 

“Copyright law does not define the terms ‘dramatic’ or ‘nondramatic,’” ASCAP’s website explains. “As a result, rightsholders, music users and occasionally the federal courts must attempt to draw the line between ‘dramatic’ and ‘nondramatic’ performances. 

“That line is often unclear and depends on the facts pertaining to a particular performance. As a general rule a dramatic performance usually involves using the work to tell a story or as part of a story or plot,” the text continues. 

In a 2024 investor deck, ClicknClear opted for a more direct description, proclaiming that “Music Venue ‘Performing Rights’ Licenses from PROs CANNOT OFFER the rights needed” for choreographed sports routines.

Furthermore, Epp underscored the claim when asked during the due diligence call why athletes couldn’t license their routines through PPL (and PRS) in the U.K. The same participant, who acknowledged having some licensing experience, also inquired about how the system had functioned before ClicknClear. 

“It’s not that that model worked, it’s that that was illegal, and the music industry has started taking action against people because they thought that – so something being covered under PPL just grants the right to play music in a public venue,” Epp responded. 

“That’s [the PRS/PPL license is] for their training venue,” she continued. “So if you’re running a gymnastics class – and it specifically states ‘background music tariff.’ Because that’s just to play music in the background as athletes are training. It’s confusing. And when you go to ask PRS and PPL, the people working there do not understand exactly how the music is being used. They’re not rights experts, they’re not legal people.”

But PRS/PPL’s TheMusicLicence offers more than the ability to idly play protected audio in the background. Rather, the appropriate description stresses that music can “highlight significant moments in the sporting event, such as when a player or players are making their entrance onto the pitch, when a goal or try is scored.” 

When do sports fall outside the scope of the standard performance license, and when exactly do athletes themselves shoulder the licensing burden? Are the above example usages – which parties besides players would cover – particularly different from, say, playing unedited music during a competitive jump-rope competition? What about an equestrian show? The subject is significant given ClicknClear’s contention that it has “no direct competitors” and offers a performance-distinct license. 

“We’re the only company that represents their rights in this market,” Epp said during the due diligence call. “So it’s like collecting societies, talk about PRS and PPL. PRS and PPL are the exclusive collecting society in the U.K., they’re the only company that you can get performing rights from. Because the rightsholders have granted them an exclusive right. We’re like them but for different rights.”

Stateside, that ASCAP and BMI deal in the very licensing options advertised by ClicknClear raises additional questions. Featuring comments from Epp, a recent New York Times piece – published following ClicknClear’s Minions Olympics licensing debacle – claimed that “an athletic performance that’s choreographed to a piece of music, such as in figure skating, is called a ‘dramatic public performance,’ and the PROs do not offer licenses for those.” 

But that’s not completely accurate. U.S. Figure Skating previously partnered with both ASCAP and BMI “to secure a blanket Performance License for all music utilized by athletes at sanctioned and approved events so long as the song choice is 100% covered.” In a message announcing as much to figure-skating competitors – the text remains live on various clubs’ and organizations’ websites – U.S. Figure Skating also pointed to ClicknClear as a licensing option. 

On top of being comparatively affordable, BMI’s competition and show license expressly authorizes the use of music during cheerleading competitions, dance competitions, rodeos, skating events, equestrian events, and “any other non-racing, similar spectator activity.”

PRS and ASCAP didn’t respond to requests for comment. ClicknClear resources show that PRS Foundation chair Jane Dyball possesses a 0.31% stake in the company. 

ClicknClear’s Racking Up Sports Federation Partnerships – And Kicking Back a Portion of Athletes’ Licensing Payments 

Why, then, are sports federations aggressively pushing individual athletes to use ClicknClear? The company has deals with the International Jump Rope Union, the International Skating Union, World Aquatics, the International Gymnastics Federation, the National Federation of State High School Associations, and others. 

Contracts reviewed by DMN show that each of the entities (or their member organizations) save the International Skating Union, in exchange for naming ClicknClear an approved music licensing platform or partner, is entitled to a 5% piece of ClicknClear’s share of licensing fees from their athletes. Also sweetening the pot are indemnification protections (not unlike those in PRO licenses) against third-party claims. ClicknClear’s “license verification system,” a significant part of Tresóna’s aforementioned suit, factors into the terms as well.

That’s quite different from paying for a blanket license at the organization level. Additionally, Epp noted during the due diligence call ClicknClear’s practice of pitching the model to federations for free – “paying for service comes with additional barriers to getting a deal done” – with an eye on compelling licensing enforcement in the long term. 

At best, the optics of this approach – federations’ pushing (or in some cases requiring) athletes to use ClicknClear to perform and simultaneously collecting a piece of the fees – are questionable. When asked about the subject during the due diligence meeting, Epp likened the arrangements to sponsorships. 

“They [federations] already have sponsorship deals that they do for commercial reasons,” she replied. “And so it’s kind of similar to that.”

Not helping is internal correspondence from ClicknClear brass emphasizing plans to fuel revenue growth by compelling partnered federations to pivot, on sport-specific timetables, their licensing approaches from “recommend” to “enforce.” 

“These partnerships with sports governing bodies are transparent, normal commercial arrangements designed to help streamline music licensing for athletes and help ensure songwriters and artists are fairly compensated in an area where they may have been previously ignored,” Epp told DMN when contacted for comment. 

The Financials Behind the Model: ClicknClear Documents Point to Ultra-Ambitious Revenue Forecasts and Continued Losses

ClicknClear’s financials may help to explain the aggressive focus on enforcement. In December 2025, the business reported monthly turnover of £8,156 (currently $10,998) and, after about £66,000 ($88,787) in administrative costs, an operating loss of £57,918 ($77,914). Between September and December 2025, due in part to £144,878 ($194,897) in legal expenses amid the Tresóna case, ClicknClear’s loss totaled £298,848 ($401,927). 

“Our outstanding balance sits at roughly £105,000 [$141,251] from royalties accrued since 2017,” ClicknClear added in a “music rightsholders” section, possibly indicating the use of royalties as operating capital. “Please note, some of these include recoupable royalties against an already paid minimum guarantee.”

Despite ClicknClear’s public representations of strong investor relationships, questions about these financials haven’t been lost on existing backers. DMN viewed footage of a tense due diligence call, different from that mentioned above, between Epp, ClicknClear director (and investor) David Walsh, and HERmesa’s Marla Shapiro. During the discussion, Shapiro asked about the business’s revenue streams, the precise implementation status of its federation agreements, and its “ambitious” growth projections.

“HERmesa angels invested in ClicknClear in April 2024,” Shapiro said to DMN. “We made this investment after the usual rigorous and thorough due diligence that we and any other investor carries out because we strongly believe in ClicknClear as a business opportunity. Since our investment, we have been delighted with the company’s progress: they have signed large contracts, and made excellent progress with sports, including at the Winter Olympics. 

“We were very pleased to see the recent dismissal of the frivolous Tresona lawsuit against the company. The company has already shown immense progress this year with newly contracted revenue. We believe the company is in an excellent position, have no concerns about its finances or business model, and look forward to participating in its next round of fundraising,” she continued, proceeding to also stress  HERmesa’s reservation of “all rights to pursue any and all actions and remedies available to us in all jurisdictions to protect our investment and ClicknClear’s proprietary interests.” 

More pressingly, as it seeks additional funding, ClicknClear has been forecasting significant (if frequently changing) revenue increases. For the 2026 fiscal year, one internal document identified expected turnover of £2.14 million ($2.88 million) and an operating loss of £559,492 ($752,657). Per the same resource, revenue would swell to £301.53 million ($405.63 million), with £86.39 million ($116.15 million) in operating profit, during the 2030 fiscal year.

However, during an investor presentation, Epp predicted £7.26 million ($9.76 million) in fiscal 2026 revenue. And an October 2023 document had forecasted (this time in dollars – perhaps because such a large revenue share was attributed to North America) $1.05 million in fiscal 2024 revenue, $10.21 million in fiscal 2025 revenue, and $99.77 million in fiscal 2026 revenue. 

In short: revenue projections have long been all over the map, and results haven’t kept pace. On the financials front, Epp described “an initially loss-making business plan” as typical for developing companies and pointed to investor support for a fresh funding round.

“Scale-up companies, particularly one pioneering a new global market like ClicknClear, fund growth through a sequence of investment rounds (Seed, Series A, etc.) and typically have an initially loss-making business plan as their offering is built, until revenues step up through market traction,” Epp said to DMN. 

“Our latest round already has interest from new and existing investors, driven by our mature technology, extensive and fast-growing music catalogue, and of course, our agreements with International and National sports federations,” she continued. 

Whether the purported interest translates into a signed-and-sealed round remains to be seen – especially in light of recent revelations. For now, it’s safe to say that there are urgent questions about ClicknClear’s central service and its ability to hit aggressive revenue targets.