Carly Simon probably thinks this post is about her (she's right)

By Eriq Gardner

We reported in October that singer Carly Simon was suing Starbucks for getting out of the music business just days before her album was due to be released on one of the coffee chain's affiliated labels.

Starbucks then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that its relationship with distributor StarCon shouldn't be confused with the contractual relationship between the distributor and Carly Simon. Starbucks claimed it had no duty to inform Simon of its intention to terminate its involvement with StarCon, that there was no actual breach of contract with Simon, and that it was a stretch to claim unfair competition when Starbucks' decision only had a single victim.

Last week, Simon filed her response. The singer who once sang "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you" now says she had the right to be informed about what Starbucks was intending to do — even if that decision wasn't really about Simon.

In her court brief, Simon says Starbucks had a duty to disclose, claiming that "an action for deceit does not require privity of contract." She points to a case law comparison: A buyer of real estate doesn't have any contractual relationship with a broker but still may sue that broker for the non-disclosure of things harming the real estate's value.

The argument is pretty interesting and may have some consequences for Hollywood studios if a court buys her theory. How would film studios react if they had to consider the ramifications to producers (and perhaps directors, writers, actors and others) every time they made a move with one of its distributors? Simon is arguing for more disclosure, which means that if she wins, there could be some liability for holding secrets. Something to watch closely.