ClicknClear Beats False Advertising Lawsuit, Faces Appeal

Photo Credit: David Trinks

Many are familiar with ClicknClear from headlines about its Universal Music Group deal (and an Olympics licensing snafu). But the performance-sports-focused “music rights tech company” has quietly been fending off an ugly false advertising lawsuit since July 2025.

The presiding judge recently granted ClicknClear’s motion to dismiss that suit – albeit while also enabling the plaintiff, self-described “music copyright licensing agent and SaaS technology developer” Tresóna Multimedia, to refile.

As is so often the case in the industry, there are multiple layers, each uniquely complex, to consider here. First, DMN was tipped to the complaint – having flown under the media radar until now – by a ClicknClear investor who’s frustrated with, among different things, the company’s purportedly precarious financial positioning, alleged “deceit,” and alleged licensing (mis)representations.

Though worth breaking down, the individual’s criticism will require quite a bit of ink to unpack – as will, separately, the alleged misrepresentations themselves. Throw in sport-by-sport music-usage particulars as well as market-specific licensing requirements and you’re left with yet another involved angle to explore.

In other words, we have plenty on our plate just with Tresóna v. ClicknClear, which was submitted to a New York federal court over the summer and, across 55 detailed pages, alleges false advertising plus a violation of New York General Business Law.

The way the litigants tell the story, Scottsdale-headquartered Tresóna set sail in 2009, London-based ClicknClear arrived on the scene in 2016, and the latter licensing entity in 2021 pivoted to establish a foothold in the same “niche market.”

While you’re already aware of ClicknClear’s aforesaid Olympics licensing debacle, the niche (sub-niche?) market at issue technically encompasses scholastic marching bands, choirs, and more. Tresóna according to its website annually provides in excess of “20,000 print, synchronization, dramatic performance, and remix licenses to scholastic, community, and professional organizations.”

Lo and behold, the expansion didn’t sit right with Tresóna, which in June 2021 fired off a cease-and-desist letter targeting critical comments made (in a Facebook group for marching band arrangers) by ClicknClear CEO Chantal Epp.

ClicknClear followed with a November 2023 cease-and-desist letter of its own, and not to be outdone, Tresóna closer to 2024’s end filed an FTC complaint against ClicknClear.

“CNC falsely claims that American consumers are required to obtain permission to ‘set choreography to’ musical works,” Tresóna vented in a press release. “CNC falsely claims that American consumers require public performance licensing, even if the venues or event organizers have already obtained public performance licensing or the performance is exempt under US copyright laws.”

Far from marking the end of the showdown, the FTC complaint evidently laid the groundwork for the July 2025 lawsuit, centering on the defendant’s alleged “false and misleading statements to consumers about U.S. music licensing law, about the nature of required rights for music license, and about ClicknClear’s products and services.”

Also at issue: ClicknClear’s alleged “false or misleading statements about Tresóna’s products and services, all deliberately designed to harm Tresóna’s business and gain an unfair competitive advantage.”

On the license-claims side, Tresóna called out ClicknClear’s allegedly “ludicrous” practice-only license advertisement – “a person who, for example, purchased sheet music does not need a separate license to practice that music on an instrument alone.”

Apparently, similar grievances loomed large in the companies’ professional relationship – referring to Tresóna’s role in assisting ClicknClear between 2022 and 2023 “at its request to obtain proper licenses for performance sports participants and organizations.”

“At other times, Tresóna could not assist ClicknClear because they would seek to obtain a license that included rights that do not exist in the U.S. or were not necessary for uses by schools, which are exempt under U.S. law,” the plaintiff wrote, referencing, for instance, “choreograph” rights purportedly pitched to a public school with which it (Tresóna) already had ties.

Shifting to the suit’s dismissal, Judge George B. Daniels described ClicknClear’s statements about “necessary” music licenses as “non-actionable opinions of law” and found that they “cannot be unequivocally proven false.”

“As both sides agree,” Judge Daniels wrote, “the necessity of these rights involve unclear and contested areas of copyright law. Indeed, ClicknClear and Tresóna devote most of their briefing to arguing whether or not each subset of the necessary rights (to set a choreographed routine, to publicly perform, and to practice alone) are actually needed by consumers.”

Furthermore, even if the statements were taken as fact and not opinion, “Tresóna fails to plead a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act,” per Judge Daniels.

“In other words, because there are instances in which ClicknClear’s [necessary licensing] assertions are true, the statements are not literally false as a general proposition,” he penned.

Missing from the suit as well: “evidence of consumer confusion” and indications that “ClicknClear’s statements were in any way deliberately deceptive or egregious.”

Finally, a claim that sports-governing bodies had “pressured consumers” into working with ClicknClear instead of Tresóna didn’t fare much better. Nor did a claim concerning ClicknClear’s “license verification system,” which is said to evaluate licenses for compliance and return “green” all-clear results solely for those provided by the defendant company.

“None of these allegations demonstrate that ClicknClear’s LVS constitutes false advertising,” Judge Daniels wrote of the “inherently subjective rating system.”

“Even assuming that the LVS’s representations, like the necessary rights statements, were impliedly false or misleading, Tresóna similarly fails to allege sufficient indications of consumer confusion,” he proceeded.

With that – also, ClicknClear’s critical remarks about Tresóna’s licensing model “all constitute nonactionable puffery under the Lanham Act” – Judge Daniels declined to dive into the state-law claims and gave the plaintiff until April 16th to file an amended action if so inclined.

“Despite the abovementioned deficiencies of the Complaint,” he indicated, “it would not be futile for Tresóna to replead with actual evidence of consumer confusion as to the [nature of] ClicknClear’s misleading statements.”

When contacted for comment, ClicknClear’s aforementioned founder and head, Chantal Epp, described the company as “pleased” with the dismissal.

“We are pleased that the court recognized that Tresona has no legal claims against ClicknClear, and that it granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety,” Epp told us. “We look forward to continuing to help choreographed sports athletes obtain the music licenses for their routines, and to return value for songwriters and recording artists.”

And in the opposite corner, Tresóna confirmed plans to move forward with an amended complaint containing “additional details and context regarding ClicknClear’s egregious, deceptive conduct.”

Here’s the single-paragraph statement Tresóna sent to DMN:

“Tresóna will be filing an amendment to its claims, as granted by the Court, to address the harmful consequences to consumers and the industry that can occur when reliance is made upon ClicknClear’s claimed verification system and misleading information about what rights it claims are ‘necessary’ to comply with copyright laws.  The determination of necessary rights is fact specific and ClicknClear’s claim to consumers and the industry that it can ‘verify’ third-party licensing is false and misleading because ClicknClear has no right or authority to do so and it causes consumer confusion, including because its verification system is subjective.  Tresóna’s amendment will provide additional details and context regarding ClicknClear’s egregious, deceptive conduct causing consumer market confusion and harm to both licensees and songwriters Tresóna represents.  Tresóna is confident in the merits of its claims and position.”