ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has upheld a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of DirecTV, Dish Network and Sling TV in a case brought by the City of Creve Coeur over unpaid video service provider fees.
The ruling concludes a long-running dispute over whether streaming platforms are subject to the state’s Video Service Provider Act (VSPA), affirming that the law does not apply to streaming content and that the 2024 amendment to the statute merely clarified its original intent.
Creve Coeur filed the lawsuit in July 2018 on behalf of itself and other Missouri municipalities, claiming that the companies provided “video service” under the VSPA and owed cities fees for using public rights-of-way to deliver video programming.
The city sought a declaration that the streaming companies were video service providers, demanded an accounting of unpaid fees, and asked for an injunction preventing the companies from operating within municipal boundaries without paying those fees.
It also alleged unjust enrichment, claiming the companies benefited from using city infrastructure without compensation.
The circuit court initially denied a motion to dismiss the case in 2020, finding that Creve Coeur had alleged sufficient facts to argue the providers delivered video content outside the “public internet” exemption in the statute.
However, after the Missouri Legislature amended the VSPA in 2024 to clarify that streaming services are not subject to its provisions, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the companies in December 2024.
The court ruled that the amendment did not substantively change the law but rather confirmed its original meaning, thereby foreclosing the city’s claims.
On appeal, Creve Coeur raised three points of error. The appellate court rejected all three arguments and affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Writing for the panel, Judge Virginia W. Lay concluded that the amendment clarified, rather than changed, the VSPA’s definition of “video service.”
The opinion noted that the changes made to the VSPA in 2024 were narrowly tailored and did not alter the statute’s scope, citing precedent that definitional amendments often serve to clarify legislative intent rather than to expand obligations.
The court further found that Creve Coeur’s constitutional argument failed because no indebtedness ever existed.
Since the VSPA never applied to streaming services, the amendment and subsequent court ruling did not extinguish any debt owed to the municipality.
The panel then dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, concluding that granting relief would contradict the legislature’s clear intent to exclude streaming services from the law’s fee structure.
The court noted that equitable relief cannot be granted when it conflicts with statutory language.
The opinion stated that only entities identified in the VSPA are required to compensate municipalities for the use of public rights-of-way, and the legislature has determined that streaming platforms are not among them.
Before addressing the merits of the case, the appellate court denied a motion by Netflix and Hulu to file an amicus brief supporting the respondents.
The court found that the motion failed to present new facts or legal questions not already raised by the parties, as required by Local Rule 375.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113308
