What if the iconic end to the film “Fight Club” featured the lyrics to The Pixies’ “Where is my Mind?” scrolling across the bottom of the screen? What if the words to Redbone’s “Come and Get Your Love” distracted from Chris Pratt’s beloved dance scene at the start of “Guardians of the Galaxy?”
While such subtitling may alter the viewing experience for some movies, one lawsuit claims that in the future, song lyrics should be captioned or at the very least, films should include a warning to deaf consumers explaining the lack of captioning. Numerous advocates for improved accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing agree.
Will future DVD, theater and streaming releases include song lyric subtitles?
The law requires that individuals with hearing disabilities are given equal access to entertainment, and the litigation contends that movies that don’t include captioning for song lyrics violate this regulation. The lawsuit claims that movie studios’ failure to provide subtitles for song lyrics takes away from deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers’ experiences. Could this lawsuit change the way that studios approach captioning in the future? Not if the studios’ arguments against such requirements succeed.
Studios’ arguments against song lyric subtitles
The defendants outlined three reasons why the lawsuit filed by members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing should fail. Sony, Warner Bros., Universal, Disney, Paramount and Buena Vista Home Entertainment filed dismissal motions explaining their arguments.
For example, they state that although studios are required to offer captioning, no reasonable consumer would understand that to apply to song lyrics in addition to conversation. While the lawsuit alleges false advertising, the studios argue that the reasonable viewer’s understanding of captioning requirements absolves them of misrepresentation. This argument addresses the allegations that the studios are guilty of false advertising, but does not speak to claims that the lack of lyric captioning is a breach of civil rights legislation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 & the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 each offer studios guidelines concerning captioning requirements. The former legislation mandated that “manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and providers of telecommunications services” provide equal access to people with disabilities. The latter, meanwhile, explains closed captioning requirements for video that is distributed via the Internet and programming devices. The Federal Communications Commissions’ outline of the regulation repeatedly mentions television, but does not address movies.
This is what the studios’ argument points to – that their film productions are not regulated in the same way as television is. The defendants’ dismissal motions note that closed captioning rules apply to broadcast television, but not to DVDs, streaming or theaters. The defendants claim that they are allowed to caption music included in movies as they see fit, and are not required to include subtitles for the lyrics of every song used in films.
In their dismissal motions, the studios also reference a 2006 settlement on DVD closed captioning that seems to acknowledge that all song lyrics do not require closed captioning. This prior ruling, combined with their arguments against false advertising and civil rights violations are what the studios are banking on to push dismissal of the lawsuit against them.
Music is important to movies, and the lyrics sometimes are part of the reason why. Other times they are just a component of the song. Either way, it seems some civil rights groups feel that lyrics should always be subtitled in future film releases. Whether the court decides the studios’ have a legitimate argument against such a notion remains to be seen.
High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Corporate Governance Reviews: A Practical Guide for New Jersey Companies
Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
What to Do After Being Served with a Lawsuit: Steps to Protect Your Legal Rights
Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Will 2026 Be a Banner Year for SPACs? Understanding the Risks and Opportunities
Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Why Compliance Monitoring Matters for NY and NJ Businesses
Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
When Are New Jersey Business Owners Personally Liable for Corporate Debt?
New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
