Constitutionality as applied to out-of-state sales The Resale Royalty Act came under legal scrutiny when, in October 2011, a group of artists and their heirs filed class action suits against auction houses
Christie's and
Sotheby's, and auction site
eBay, for failure of those brokers to pay royalties per the Resale Act. In a decision on May 17, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen dismissed the suits on the grounds that the Resale Royalty Act violated the
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and was therefore invalid as law (''Estate of Graham, et al, v. Sotheby's Inc.''). The Commerce Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as not only affirmatively granting to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, but also, by negative implication, prohibiting the states from unjustifiably discriminating against or burdening the flow of interstate commerce. The court struck the clause "the seller resides in California or" from the Act, declining to rule on whether the Act could otherwise be applied to sales made within California.
Preemption In April 2016, another federal judge,
Michael W. Fitzgerald, held the entire act to be preempted by section 301 of the
Copyright Act of 1976. That ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, with initial briefs filed on March 9, 2017. Oral argument was held on April 10, 2018. On July 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit nullified the California Resale Royalties Act. Now, only works resold from January 1, 1977 to January 1, 1978, when the Copyright Act became effective, are eligible for the royalty payment. The court ruled that royalty claims made after January 1, 1978 "were expressly pre-empted" by the Copyright Act—which does not recognize an artist's right to resale royalties. ==See also==