‘Anatomy of Murder’ Hosts Sue Audiochuck, Claim Millions Lost in SiriusXM Ad Deal | Podcast Industry Lawsuit Explained
In a lawsuit that has sent shockwaves through the true-crime podcast community, the creators of the hit series “Anatomy of Murder” have filed a sweeping legal complaint against Audiochuck, the media company founded by Crime Junkie host Ashley Flowers. The suit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Audiochuck exploited the show’s creators, withheld millions of dollars in advertising revenue tied to its exclusive relationship with SiriusXM, engaged in questionable accounting practices, and concealed major business changes at the very moment it was renegotiating future contract terms.
The plaintiffs — Forseti Media, led by former Brooklyn prosecutor Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, and Weinberger Media, led by veteran journalist Scott Weinberger — assert that they were left in the dark about critical business decisions while simultaneously absorbing the financial consequences of Audiochuck’s evolving partnerships. According to the complaint, the hosts were promised growth, transparency, and shared success; instead, they claim they were sidelined, misled, and financially undercut despite delivering one of the most successful true-crime podcasts on the market.
With nearly 200 million downloads and a reputation as one of Audiochuck’s “crown jewel” productions, Anatomy of Murder built massive momentum. But behind the scenes, the relationship between the show’s creators and the company distributing it was unraveling.
This is the full breakdown of the allegations, the money trail, the SiriusXM controversy, and the potential impact this lawsuit may have on the wider podcasting industry.
Launched as a deep-dive narrative series exploring homicide investigations, Anatomy of Murder quickly became a staple for true-crime fans around the world. With professional backgrounds in criminal justice and investigative reporting, Nicolazzi and Weinberger brought credibility, insider access, and gripping analysis — setting the show apart in an increasingly crowded true-crime landscape.
Audiochuck routinely praised the show’s growth. In one document quoted in the lawsuit, Ashley Flowers wrote in June 2021:
“AOM has shown 100% growth in revenue with almost little to no marketing budget.”
Internally, Anatomy of Murder was recognized as Audiochuck’s second-largest show, surpassed only by Crime Junkie.
Behind the Scenes: A Crumbling Partnership
Despite high praise, a series of financial disagreements emerged early in the partnership. The complaint alleges that:
Audiochuck deducted its own talent agency’s fees from shared revenue — a practice not allowed under the contract.
When confronted with evidence, Audiochuck allegedly first denied, then later admitted the deductions.
A contract extension negotiated in October 2024 required Audiochuck to return the improperly deducted money and clarify its obligations going forward.
But the hosts say bigger problems were already underway — they just didn’t know it yet.
THE SIRIUSXM DEAL AND THE MILLIONS THAT “DISAPPEARED’
A $100–$200 Million Agreement That Changed Everything
In late 2021, Audiochuck struck an exclusive global advertising arrangement with SiriusXM, a deal described in the lawsuit as being worth between $100 million and $200 million. This transformative partnership meant that SiriusXM, rather than Audiochuck, would control ad sales for all its podcasts.
According to the complaint, the deal had massive implications for the revenue earned by the Anatomy of Murder creators. Yet the plaintiffs claim they were ** never informed** of the full consequences until their income plummeted.
The Numbers Paint a Stark Picture
The lawsuit highlights a dramatic revenue shift at the exact moment the SiriusXM arrangement took effect:
December 2021 (pre-SiriusXM): Anatomy of Murder generated $73,579 in ad revenue share.
January 2022 (post-SiriusXM): Revenue dropped to $24,963 — a 66% decline.
But according to the hosts, Audiochuck continued to receive guaranteed minimum payments from SiriusXM — money they say never flowed to them, even though their show was one of the major earning engines inside the network.
Promises That Never Materialized
The creators claim Audiochuck repeatedly told them that the SiriusXM agreement would increase their earnings, possibly by millions. According to the lawsuit, none of this happened — instead, revenue dropped steadily even as Audiochuck benefited financially from guaranteed payments on the back end.
ALLEGATIONS OF CONCEALMENT AND MISLEADING CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Renegotiation Amid Secrecy
One of the most serious elements in the complaint is the allegation that:
Audiochuck renegotiated its SiriusXM contract in early 2025 but did not disclose this during the renewal negotiations with Nicolazzi and Weinberger.
According to the lawsuit:
The renegotiated terms significantly reduced revenue across the network.
Audiochuck allegedly knew the show’s creators would receive much less than projected.
The hosts were given four different explanations for the revenue decline before Audiochuck acknowledged the real cause.
The Smoking Gun: Internal Email Revealed in Filing
The complaint cites an email from Audiochuck’s Chief Operating Officer, who wrote that SiriusXM:
“Adjusted its payment structure, resulting in a reduction in the gross revenue received across the network of shows.”
The plaintiffs argue this proves Audiochuck was aware of — and failed to disclose — material changes that directly undermined the financial terms they agreed to.
BLOCKED REVENUE STREAMS & LOST OPPORTUNITIES
Subscription Model: A Critical Missed Opportunity
One of the most damaging consequences of the SiriusXM agreement, according to the suit, was the limitation it placed on Anatomy of Murder’s ability to expand into premium subscription offerings.
The lawsuit alleges:
Nicolazzi and Weinberger were actively preparing to launch a subscription tier.
SiriusXM had exclusive rights under its Audiochuck agreement, preventing them from doing so.
Audiochuck allegedly never informed them of the restriction during planning.
Notably, the complaint claims that Audiochuck’s flagship show, Crime Junkie, was not subject to the same restriction — raising concerns about favoritism.
Free Ads on Their Own Show?
Another major allegation is that SiriusXM ads were permitted to run for free on Anatomy of Murder, diminishing available paid inventory and decreasing potential revenue.
According to the filing, this practice:
Boosted SiriusXM’s reach and exposure
Provided no corresponding financial benefit to the hosts
Resulted in reduced ad space that could have been sold at premium rates
LACK OF SUPPORT & FAILURE TO PROMOTE THE SHOW
Marketing Neglect
In addition to financial grievances, the lawsuit accuses Audiochuck of failing to provide basic promotional support.
The hosts allege:
Audiochuck did not promote Anatomy of Murder with the same energy or visibility as its in-house shows.
Promised marketing campaigns never materialized.
Opportunities to capitalize on the show’s success were overlooked.
No Merchandise, Despite High Demand
The filing claims Audiochuck committed to creating and selling merchandise for the show — a key revenue stream in the podcasting world — but never followed through.
This failure, the hosts argue, left substantial money on the table and limited ways for fans to support the show.
DAMAGES SOUGHT — A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LEGAL BATTLE
The plaintiffs are seeking damages exceeding $20 million, along with:
Compensatory damages
Interest
Reimbursement of withheld funds
Any additional relief the court finds appropriate
Given the show’s global success and long-term earning potential, legal experts note the final judgment could exceed even the initial figure.
AUDIOCHUCK RESPONDS — AND ITS NEXT BIG MOVE
Though Audiochuck has not formally responded to the lawsuit, the company issued a brief statement:
“We vigorously refute the claims made by the plaintiffs. We will defend ourselves in court. Beyond that, we do not comment on ongoing legal disputes.”
Meanwhile, the company made a surprising business announcement just weeks before the lawsuit became public: Audiochuck is ending its SiriusXM partnership after four years and shifting to a new deal with Fox’s Tubi Media Group, valued at approximately $150 million.
Industry observers note the timing could raise questions about the stability of the SiriusXM partnership and its impact on creator relationships.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE PODCAST INDUSTRY
A Warning Shot to the True-Crime World
This lawsuit highlights deeper concerns within the podcasting industry:
Creator compensation
Transparency in advertising deals
Revenue-sharing models
Favoritism among network-owned shows
Accountability within growing podcast conglomerates
As podcast networks expand and diversify revenue streams, creators are increasingly demanding clearer financial reporting and equitable treatment.
Why This Case Could Set a Precedent
If Nicolazzi and Weinberger win, it may:
Force podcast networks to revise revenue-sharing contracts
Require full disclosure of third-party deals
Encourage independent creators to demand audit rights
Change how networks handle partnerships with major distributors like SiriusXM or Spotify
Given the size of Audiochuck and the influence of Crime Junkie, this legal battle is poised to become a landmark dispute in the industry.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Legal experts anticipate:
Months of negotiations
Possible mediation efforts
Potential for settlement if Audiochuck aims to avoid trial
Ongoing scrutiny from media and podcast fans
The court will likely focus on:
Contract terms
Accounting practices
Disclosure obligations
Evidence of misleading communication
With millions at stake and reputations on the line, this case will undoubtedly reshape public perceptions of both the creators and Audiochuck.
AN INDUSTRY AT A CROSSROADS
The lawsuit from the Anatomy of Murder hosts against Audiochuck is more than a financial dispute — it is a story about trust, transparency, and the evolving business of podcasting. As the medium matures and money flows in from major media organizations, creator-network relationships are becoming more complex, more strained, and more consequential.
Whether the plaintiffs ultimately win or lose, this case exposes growing tensions within the audio industry and raises pivotal questions:
Who truly profits from hit podcasts?
How transparent must networks be about revenue?
What protections should creators have as platforms consolidate?
For now, listeners, legal analysts, and industry insiders alike are watching closely as the courtroom showdown begins — one that could redefine the future of independent podcast creation.
