"They Were Talking About Me Behind My Back": Artist Jo Loewenthal Exposes Global Music Royalty System with Leaked Emails and Takes Legal Action
PROs across the globe, big or small, it’s time you listen to the musicians.
by Nina K. Malik.
Johan "Jo" Loewenthal, frontman of the indie band Tora, has ignited a global conversation by revealing internal emails and data reports that expose what he describes as systemic deceptive practices within the international music royalty network — and the evidence he has assembled is difficult to dismiss.
A series of social media posts has ignited a conversation among independent artists worldwide, centering on Loewenthal's multi-year battle to obtain clear, accurate, and verifiable data about his own music from the very organisations created to protect and pay him: Performing Rights Organisations (PROs).
Among the most striking evidence are internal emails between two major PROs – APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) and SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) – which Loewenthal obtained through a formal data access request under PIPEDA, Canada’s federal privacy legislation. The distinction matters: any artist can theoretically do the same.
"Emails I was never supposed to see," he writes. "[They show] APRA telling SOCAN to send me back to them – while telling me they had nothing more to give. SOCAN admitting internally they would only hand over my data if the Privacy Commissioner legally forced them to."
Loewenthal questions the motives behind this coordination. "Why would two organisations mandated to collect our royalties coordinate across two countries to stop one artist from seeing his own data?" he asks.
Loewenthal’s investigation into the data itself is equally troubling. He discovered 111,977 exact duplicate rows in the royalty data he received – identical play counts for the same song appearing across multiple streaming platforms simultaneously, a scenario he describes as "statistically impossible."
He also identified hundreds of unexplained negative royalty entries with no justification provided. Despite submitting a forensic report documenting these anomalies directly to APRA / AMCOS, their response was dismissive: "this is the best we can do."
Loewenthal criticizes these organizations for sending self-processed data they’ve already flagged as unreliable, leaving artists unable to verify their earnings.
Loewenthal's criticism extends to a wide network of collecting societies, including APRA AMCOS, GEMA, PRS, SOCAN, SESAC, SACEM, ASCAP, BMI, and others. He accuses them of relying on opacity to maintain control over artists' earnings without providing proof or transparency. Critically, all of these organisations coordinate through CISAC – the international PRO federation – meaning the data opacity documented in Australia is not a local anomaly. The same structural mechanisms operate in every major market.
Loewenthal has also served a formal demand letter to music distributor The Orchard, accusing them of collecting his band Tora's neighbouring rights since 2017 without authorisation. He claims the company admitted in writing in 2022 that they did not have the right to collect, but continued to do so regardless.
In Australia, the stakes have escalated to the regulatory level. APRA AMCOS is currently seeking reauthorisation of its blanket licensing regime from the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission). Loewenthal filed a supplementary submission to that proceeding, drawing on GDPR and PIPEDA data access requests he has made across multiple PROs globally.
An internal ACCC email – inadvertently received by Loewenthal – reveals that the regulator's own case officer described the coordination between collecting societies to block artist data access as “quite possibly fraud and/or incompetence.” The case officer also noted she does not believe this changes the overall picture of the proceeding, but the admission exists in writing, from inside the regulator itself. Loewenthal has since submitted a formal written request to the ACCC Director demanding answers to three specific questions.
The US Picture – SESAC and the Data Privacy Framework
While the Australian and Canadian cases are significant, Loewenthal's investigation into SESAC may represent the most self-contained evidence of systemic failure yet – and the most consequential for US artists.
SESAC participates in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, meaning they voluntarily committed to GDPR-equivalent data rights for European artists collecting US royalties. In September 2025, Loewenthal submitted a formal access request. SESAC went 53 days without any response – no acknowledgment, no extension notice – already outside the timeframes their own stated commitments require. When they finally engaged, they refused to disclose his performance and royalty data, citing a privacy exemption on behalf of broadcasters.
In December 2025, Loewenthal filed complaints with both the FTC – the US enforcement body for Data Privacy Framework violations – and the BayLDA, the Bavarian data protection authority. Only after those regulatory filings did SESAC begin to produce data, ultimately delivering a formal disclosure in February 2026.
What that disclosure contains is the real story. The file includes nearly 11,000 rows – seven years of transactions across Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, YouTube, Tidal, and more. There is not a single play count or stream count anywhere in the data. The only usage metric in the entire file is a column called “Num Of Stations” – an aggregate proxy figure that cannot be used to verify a single royalty calculation. SESAC's SVP & Counsel stated in writing that this file “represents all data in SESAC's possession” concerning Loewenthal. If accurate, SESAC has been calculating and paying royalties based on a formula with no verifiable usage units. You cannot audit it. You cannot dispute it. You simply receive a number.
This creates a direct contradiction in SESAC's own written positions. They simultaneously claimed the disclosure represents everything they hold, and that they withheld performance and usage data on privacy grounds on behalf of broadcasters. Both cannot be true. Either SESAC has the underlying usage data and withheld it – in direct conflict with the frameworks they voluntarily adopted – or they do not have it and have been calculating royalties without any verifiable usage units.
The disclosure also revealed a pay hold placed on Loewenthal's account in February 2019 that was apparently never communicated to him, six years of transactions processed against that hold, and 148 unexplained negative royalty entries concentrated in a single year with no explanation provided. SESAC's final written position, dated February 2026, stated they had “satisfied any obligations we may have” – a hedge that a company confident in full compliance would have little reason to make.
A Call to Action:
Loewenthal's campaign is more than a personal grievance – it is a call to action for all creators. He is rallying artists under the banner of "ARTICLE 15" to demand their data and push for a fundamental shift in the industry. He argues that the current "blanket licensing" system, designed for sheet music in the early 1900s, is hopelessly outdated for the streaming era.
His proposed solution is a move towards "Direct Programmable Licensing," a transparent system that pays artists directly and in real time as their music is used.
"The mission is to get unclaimed royalties to the rightful owners – and we do that through public pressure and awareness," Loewenthal insists. "WE ARE NOT POWERLESS."
As this story develops, it reflects a deep-seated frustration within the creative community over the complex and often impenetrable systems that govern their livelihoods. For Jo Loewenthal and the growing number of artists supporting him, this is the beginning of a collective fight to reclaim their power and their data.
What Happens Next?
On April 14, 2026, Loewenthal filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Publishing Pty Limited in the NSW Supreme Court – a significant escalation that moves his campaign from public pressure into the courts. The case could have far-reaching implications for how royalties are tracked, disclosed, and distributed across the industry.
Unmixed has been in contact with Loewenthal and will be conducting further research into these issues. He has provided a complete evidence package including the full GDPR correspondence with SESAC, the data disclosure file, FTC and BayLDA complaint confirmations, and SESAC’s own Data Privacy Framework documentation. More to come.
photo by Viorika.
