From what I understand, Stern thinks that he should be credited with XM subscribers who have involuntarily joined Sirius. Here is one article.
It might simply be that his contract says that he should (which would be stupid on the part of Sirius executives), and this thread is pointless.
However, if it comes down to a judge determining the logic of this, then I can’t see how he has a case. I am an XM subscriber who never enjoyed Stern when he was on regular radio. In fact, I bought my XM radio specifically for another talk radio show that was on the same channel as Stern when I lived in Orlando, and I mainly only listen to this type of radio. (Not that I want to turn this into a “Stern sux/Stern rulz” thread. Just pointing out that he is in no way responsible for my monthly payments to SiriusXM.) How can he claim responsibility for the subscriptions of people who subscribed to Sirius’ competitor? If these people wanted to listen to his show, then they would have chosen Sirius over XM back before they merged.
I didn’t see any other threads about this. Also, I wasn’t sure whether to put this in Cafe society, GD or GQ.