Your Passion, Our Protection
More than legal protection, we’re true partners to those shaping culture through creativity.
When Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW) uploaded promotional content to TikTok featuring Becky G's "Shower" on the Fourth of July, the marketing team probably thought they'd crafted the perfect summer campaign. The caption cleverly referenced the song's iconic lyric—"Shop our semi-annual sale and light up like the 4th of July"—and the video resonated with audiences. What they didn't anticipate was Sony Music Entertainment filing a massive copyright infringement lawsuit seeking damages that could reach astronomical levels.
Welcome to the new reality of social media marketing, where a simple post can transform into a six-figure legal nightmare.
Under U.S. copyright law, statutory damages for music infringement range from $750 to $30,000 per work. But here's where the financial exposure becomes truly terrifying: if the court determines the infringement was "willful"—meaning the infringer knew or should have known they were violating copyright—that maximum jumps to $150,000 per work.
For brands posting multiple videos across Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms, the math becomes devastating quickly. DSW faced allegations involving over 200 songs across multiple social media posts. At the statutory maximum, potential damages could exceed tens of millions of dollars. Similarly, Marriott International faced exposure of up to $140 million for allegedly using 931 Sony songs without authorization in social media content.
The kicker? Brands don't need to prove they made a profit from the music, and copyright holders don't need to demonstrate actual financial harm. Statutory damages exist precisely to provide remedies when actual damages are difficult to quantify—making them a powerful weapon in music industry litigation.
The most dangerous misconception plaguing brands today is the belief that if music is available on a platform, it's automatically legal to use for commercial purposes. This assumption has cost companies millions and spawned an entire wave of litigation from major record labels.
TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube all maintain music libraries that users can access with a simple click. However, these libraries come with a critical distinction that many brands miss: platform licenses generally cover personal, non-commercial use only. The moment content promotes a brand, product, or service—even in an "organic" post from a brand account—it crosses into commercial territory requiring separate licensing.
Crumbl Cookies learned this lesson the hard way when Warner Music Group sued the dessert chain for using 159 copyrighted songs in TikTok and Instagram videos. The complaint alleged Crumbl had strategically paired songs with related products—using Lil Mosey's "Blueberry Faygo" to promote blueberry cheesecake cookies, or BTS's "Butter" for a Kentucky Butter Cake cookie. Despite the music being readily available in TikTok's library, Warner sought up to $23.85 million in statutory damages.
Some brands have attempted to circumvent restrictions by switching between business and creator accounts, or by having influencers post content that brands then amplify. These workarounds have proven legally ineffective.
Both TikTok and Meta (Instagram and Facebook) offer separate commercial music libraries with far more limited selections than their general libraries. TikTok's Commercial Music Library is mandatory for business accounts and branded content, while Meta's Sound Collection contains only about 14,000 tracks compared to the millions available for personal use.
More troubling for brands: even if an influencer posts content using their personal account privileges, when that content promotes a brand through paid partnerships, sponsorships, or ambassador programs, courts have found the brand liable for contributory or vicarious copyright infringement. Warner Music's lawsuit against DSW specifically addressed influencer content created for the shoe retailer, arguing that DSW encouraged, collaborated with, and paid influencers to create videos featuring copyrighted music.
The wave of music copyright litigation against brands has produced sobering outcomes across industries:
University of Southern California faced a lawsuit from Sony Music for allegedly using over 170 songs in 283 promotional videos for its athletics program. Despite being an educational institution, USC couldn't claim the same fair use protections for promotional marketing content, with Sony seeking $150,000 per song in damages.
Johnson & Johnson was sued by Associated Production Music for "rampant infringement" involving 30 songs across 79 social media posts on YouTube and Facebook. Even using production music—rather than hit songs from major artists—required proper licensing for commercial use.
Bang Energy faced multiple lawsuits from Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in TikTok content. Courts ruled against the energy drink company, finding direct infringement for videos posted on Bang's own accounts and vicarious infringement for influencer content.
What makes these cases particularly damaging is that many companies received advance warning. Sony Music reported that it began notifying Marriott about copyright violations as early as January 2020, years before filing its lawsuit. Warner Music sent Crumbl Cookies a cease-and-desist letter in August 2023, but the company continued posting allegedly infringing content. In one telling caption from January 2024, Crumbl itself noted: "We were gonna make a funny video to promote Mystery Cookie, but legal said we can't use any trending audios."
This pattern of continued infringement after notification strengthens claims of willful violation, pushing potential statutory damages to the maximum $150,000 per work threshold.
The social media music landscape has fundamentally shifted. Record labels and music publishers have recognized that brands routinely use valuable copyrighted music without compensation, and they're aggressively pursuing legal remedies. Several critical realities now govern this space:
First, platform music libraries don't grant commercial rights. If a brand account posts content, or if content promotes products or services in any way, separate licensing is required—even if the music appears in the platform's library.
Second, cross-platform posting multiplies risk. A song licensed for TikTok's commercial library cannot be downloaded and used on Instagram or YouTube without separate licensing for each platform. Each unauthorized use on each platform potentially constitutes a separate infringement.
Third, influencer partnerships don't create legal shields. When influencers create branded content, both the influencer and the sponsoring brand can face liability for unlicensed music use.
Fourth, ignorance provides no protection. Courts have rejected arguments that brands didn't understand licensing requirements, particularly when dealing with sophisticated companies that license music for traditional advertising.
The message from recent litigation is unambiguous: the $30,000 mistake isn't a worst-case scenario anymore—it's becoming routine. For brands treating social media music licensing as an afterthought, the legal bills and statutory damages are piling up, proving that what seems like a simple background track can become the most expensive element of any marketing campaign.
From general questions to potential IP misuse, choose the option that best fits your case.
Our team will review your submission and get back to you as soon as possible.