Dave Rowntree’s PRS Black Box Royalties Appeal Dismissed: What Is Confirmed and What Is Still Unresolved

Dave Rowntree’s proposed class action against PRS for Music was not revived by the UK Court of Appeal. The appeal over so-called black box royalties was dismissed, with Music Business Worldwide reporting that the ruling was handed down on Monday, June 29, 2026. For readers following the dispute, the immediate consequence is narrow but important: the reported appeal failed, the earlier tribunal refusal remains in place, and the royalty allegation itself remains unproven.

Key points

The UK Court of Appeal dismissed Dave Rowntree’s appeal in his proposed class action against PRS for Music.
The ruling upheld an earlier Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, after Digital Music News reported the tribunal denied the proposed class action in August 2025.
Rowntree’s claim, as reported by The Independent, was that PRS pays unidentified “black box” royalties to publishers but not to songwriters.

What changed

The confirmed development is procedural. Rowntree, the Blur drummer, had sought to revive a proposed class action against PRS for Music, the UK collecting society, over the distribution of black box royalties. The Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal. That means the proposed class action did not get moving again through this ruling.

The decision matters because it upheld the earlier Competition Appeal Tribunal outcome. Digital Music News reported that the tribunal denied Rowntree’s proposed class action in August 2025. Complete Music Update reported that the Competition Tribunal had previously refused to certify the class action lawsuit Rowntree and his litigation funders were trying to bring against PRS.

That sequence is the cleanest way to read the case at this stage: tribunal refusal first, appeal dismissal next. The Court of Appeal ruling did not create a new payout, did not establish the alleged royalty practice as fact, and did not confirm that every possible legal route has ended. It confirmed that this appeal did not revive the proposed class action.

The case timeline

The dispute reached the Competition Appeal Tribunal before it reached the Court of Appeal. At that earlier stage, the proposed class action did not clear certification. Digital Music News placed that denial in August 2025, while Complete Music Update described the tribunal as having refused to certify the lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal then considered Rowntree’s attempt to challenge that result. Music Business Worldwide reported that the appeal ruling was handed down on Monday, June 29, 2026. The outcome was a dismissal, and the earlier tribunal decision was upheld.

For anyone trying to understand the practical status, those two dates and stages do most of the work. August 2025 marks the reported tribunal denial. June 29, 2026 marks the reported appeal dismissal. The proposed class action remains blocked on the reported path because the appeal did not disturb the tribunal result.

The royalty allegation

The underlying dispute concerns black box royalties. The Independent described those royalties as unidentified royalties and reported Rowntree’s claim that PRS pays them to publishers but not to songwriters.

That is an allegation, not a confirmed finding about PRS conduct. The Court of Appeal dismissal does not, on the facts available here, prove or disprove Rowntree’s claim. It addresses whether the proposed class action could proceed through the appeal route after the tribunal refusal.

That distinction is central to the story. Rowntree’s side alleged a problem in how unidentified royalties were distributed. PRS for Music was the collecting society targeted by the proposed action. The courts, as reported, left the proposed class action unable to proceed on this route. Those are different points, and keeping them separate avoids turning a procedural loss into a merits ruling the record does not support.

The money at issue

The Independent described the dispute as a court battle over £200 million in unpaid songwriter royalties. That figure belongs in the story because it frames the scale of the claim as reported. It should not be treated as a court-awarded amount.

Nothing in the confirmed appeal result establishes £200 million as damages due, a judicial finding, or a payout ordered by the Court of Appeal. The safer reading is more limited: the dispute was publicly described as involving £200 million in unpaid songwriter royalties, while the appeal outcome was about whether Rowntree’s proposed class action could be revived after the tribunal refusal.

That also limits what can be said about impact. The ruling is significant for the proposed class action and for the parties named in the dispute. It does not, on the reported facts alone, establish direct operational changes for songwriters, publishers, listeners, or PRS.

What readers should watch

Several practical questions remain unresolved after the dismissal.

Whether Rowntree or his legal team will seek any further appeal or pursue another route.
Whether PRS for Music issued a formal response after the Court of Appeal ruling.
The exact reasoning used by the Court of Appeal beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the earlier tribunal decision.
The detailed basis for the £200 million figure.
Whether any regulator or industry group will respond to the ruling.

Those gaps do not weaken the confirmed result. They define its limits. The reported ruling says Rowntree lost the appeal and that the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s earlier refusal remains in place. It does not say the royalty allegation has been proven. It does not say the £200 million figure has been awarded. It does not confirm what, if anything, happens next.

The most precise conclusion is therefore a restrained one: Rowntree’s proposed class action against PRS for Music over black box royalties was not revived by the Court of Appeal; the earlier tribunal refusal still stands; and the disputed claim about unidentified royalties paid to publishers but not songwriters remains an allegation rather than a court-established fact.