Brand Music Copyright Lawsuit Tracker

No, and this is the most misread number in the category. 9 of the 16 headline figures are the maximum statutory exposure pleaded — the number of works multiplied by the $150k ceiling US law allows for willful infringement. That is the top of the range a claimant could theoretically recover, not a sum anyone has handed over. 7 have settled outright or agreed terms in principle, and one has settled with some of its defendants but not all — in every case on undisclosed terms. We label the basis of each figure rather than let a large number speak for itself.

Because none has been publicly reported — not because the case is necessarily still running. Most of these disputes settle quietly and the terms are never made public, so silence tells you very little. An earlier version of this page carried a Filed/Settled status instead, and it was wrong on four rows within a day of publishing: Gymshark had shown as "Filed" for four years despite settling in January 2022. A status is a claim about the present tense that a page like this cannot keep true. A dated event can only ever be right.

Cases where a rights holder pursued an organization over music in its social media content — not a platform, not an individual creator — and where the case is a matter of public record with published reporting behind it. Every row links to that report and carries the date we last checked it, and every stated outcome carries a second source of its own, because an article about a filing is not evidence of how a case ended. If we cannot source something, it does not go on the page, however widely it is repeated elsewhere.

Because that is who claimants name. Several complaints here plead influencer-posted content against the brand, and Sony's suit against OFRA Cosmetics names no influencer as a defendant at all. Whether a brand is ultimately liable for a creator's post is still open: the one court to reach the question denied summary judgment on it, but on a procedural footing rather than the merits, while holding the same brand strictly liable for the videos it posted itself. Either way, the claim, the disclosure and the legal costs arrive at the brand.

Not for a brand, and one of the cases here tested it directly. A court rejected the argument that a track's presence in a platform's in-app library licensed a company's own promotional videos: copyright infringement is strict liability, so believing you were covered goes to damages rather than to fault. Business accounts see a different catalog from personal ones, and availability in the app has never been the same thing as clearance.

No. The claims on this page span 8 sectors, including sports and higher education. Fourteen NBA teams were sued on a single day in July 2024; the American Hockey League and nine of its clubs followed that September; Sony sued the University of Southern California over posts promoting its athletics programs. Nothing about the argument depends on selling a product — only on publishing promotional content with music in it.