The Wu Tang Trade: A Unique Application of Trade Secrets Laws in the Music Industry

In an action regarding the alleged improper usage and distribution of the exceptionally unique Wu Tang Clan album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, plaintiffs bring claims of misappropriation and conversion of trade secrets for the misuse of the album's contents. In an unprecedented ruling, the court allowed the claims to proceed, applying trade secrets laws in ways that they have not been used before.

The expansion and development of the Western body of law surrounding Trade Secrets has bloomed substantially since the 19th century and the dawn of industrialization. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39 (A.L.I. 2024). Protecting data, formulae, processes, and other business assets that derive most of their value from their privileged nature is a concern across industries, but in the recent case of PleasrDAO v. Shkreli, Trade Secrets protections have been expanded in a unique way. PleasrDAO v. Shkreli, 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345, at *1–3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025). 

Under the Defense of Trade Secrets Act, persons and business entities are afforded protections against the misappropriation and conversion of trade secrets to prevent irreparable harm to the business interests of the owner of said secrets, and to prevent the unjust enrichment of the party breaching confidence. 18 U.S.C. § 1836. Normally, such protections are applied to secret formulae, designs, data, and other forms of information where the value of the information to its owner is predicated solely on its secrecy. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39. In the music industry, copyright claims are more prevalent, as trade secret claims arise from the value of the secrecy of the work, where the theft of musical works usually falls under copyright claims based solely on the copying of the work. Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, 253 F.Supp. 3d 1073 (D.Minn. 2017); Brainard v. Vasser, 561 F.Supp.2d 922, 930 (M.D.Tenn. 2008). Definitions vary across jurisdictions, but they often convey similar ideas: the claimed trade secret is information, including patterns, formulae, or designs that derive independent economic value from their secrecy, under which efforts are taken to maintain said secrecy. Wis. Stat. § 134.90. 

Plaintiffs have attempted to bring claims of misappropriation of trade secrets with regard to their music, like in the case Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, where the plaintiffs alleged that Prince’s unreleased recordings may accrue economic value from remaining secret as a result of pent-up demand. Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc., 253 F.Supp. 3d at 1073. The court ruled, however, that the alleged “pent-up demand” by fans for the release of the music was not sufficient grounds to indicate that the economic value of the work was derived from their unreleased nature, as they gain no benefit from its secrecy other than potentially building interest in the music. Id. 

The unique nature of the development and sale of Wu Tang Clan’s album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin has made the case surrounding it equally unique. The album, which took five years to develop and was completed in 2015, was not produced for a mass market like the majority of music today. Conceptus, SCLUZAY, https://scluzay.com/conceptus, (last visited Nov. 1, 2025). In fact, only one copy of the album was ever sold. The Work, SCLUZAY, https://scluzay.com/work, (last visited Nov. 1, 2025). The Wu Tang Clan produced the album as a statement, believing that the value of music as art in the modern age had plummeted, and created this album with the express intention of imbuing it with a heightened value. Conceptus,  supra. The CD of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, which sold for $2,000,000, came with even more prohibitive terms than the exceedingly high price tag. PleasrDAO, 2025 WL 2733345 at *2. In the contract for sale, it was indicated that the purchaser: 

. . . may duplicate or replicate the Work for private use, but shall not duplicate, replicate, and/or exploit the Work for any commercial or other non-commercial purposes” other than certain permitted uses limited to: “the private or public exhibition or playing of the Work, with or without charge, in locations such as Buyer's home, museums, art galleries, restaurants, bars, exhibition spaces, or other similar spaces not customarily used as venues for large musical concerts, as well as the advertising and/or promotion of such exhibition or playing of the Work. 

Id. 

After Mr. Shkreli was ordered to forfeit the album in the aftermath of another suit, he began to play the music over internet streams and to distribute physical copies to personal associates. Id. at *1–3. Shkreli claimed in internet posts to have played the album on a number of livestreams for thousands of individuals, in addition to having shared the work with at least “50 ppl.” Id. at *4. This behavior spotentially violates the aforementioned clause of the sale contract, as it placed substantial restrictions on Mr. Shkreli’s dispersal of the album and its files to others. Id. at *2. This public display and distribution of material designed and agreed to be secret opened Mr. Shkreli up to contract claims, which followed within a day of his alleged conduct. Id. at *4. PleasrDAO, a company that deals in culturally significant media, was awarded the album by the same order. Id. When Shkreli retained and distributed the album, PleasrDAO brought claims against Mr. Shkreli for “(1) enforcement of the Forfeiture Order; (2) violations of the DTSA; (3) misappropriation of confidential information/trade secrets; (4) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) recovery of chattel/replevin . . . Along with its Complaint, PleasrDAO filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.” Id. at *4. 

The court’s ruling on the third claim for the misappropriation of trade secrets differed substantially from that of the Paisley court. Id.; Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc., 253 F.Supp. 3d at 1073. At this stage in Paisley Park Enterprises, the court refused to enjoin the defendant’s trade secret claims as the plaintiffs had not established appropriately that the unreleased music constituted a trade secret. Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc., 253 F.Supp. 3dat 1046. Due to the nature of the Wu Tang Clan album, its single intended hard copy, protective terms of sale, and the substantial value derived from the restricted access to the album and its contents, the PleasrDAO court ruled that there was sufficient cause for the claim for the misappropriation and conversion of trade secrets to be pursued further. PleasrDAO2025 WL 2733345 at *7–9The designation of an individual musical work as protectable under trade secrets law is unique, so much so that the PleasrDAO court acknowledged the case as “a somewhat unusual application of the trade secret doctrine or statutes.” Id. at *8. As of now, the case remains so postured, and as the case proceeds, we will see just how far trade secret law may apply to the album, and whether PleasrDAO will prevail in their claims.