Your Passion, Our Protection
More than legal protection, we’re true partners to those shaping culture through creativity.
On July 4, 2024, DSW posted a TikTok video promoting its semi-annual sale. The caption referenced the "Fourth of July" lyric from Becky G's hit song "Shower," which played throughout the video. The post resonated with audiences, generating engagement that any marketing team would celebrate. Months later, Sony Music Entertainment filed a federal lawsuit against DSW, citing this video—along with hundreds of others—as willful copyright infringement that could expose the shoe retailer to millions in statutory damages.
This pattern has repeated across industries as major music companies wage an aggressive litigation campaign against brands using unlicensed music in social media content. The lawsuits share common elements: brands that assumed platform music libraries granted commercial rights, continued posting after receiving warnings, and now face financial consequences that dwarf any benefits the music provided.
In May 2024, Sony Music Entertainment sued Marriott International, alleging the hotel giant had used 931 Sony-owned songs without authorization across social media posts from Marriott-owned, managed, or franchised hotels, plus content from influencers Marriott had paid.
The complaint detailed how Marriott strategically deployed popular music to boost social media engagement. When Beyoncé's "Texas Hold 'Em" debuted at number one on Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart, Marriott posted content featuring the song just three days later, capitalizing on its trending status. Posts explicitly connected songs to their famous artists—a video using Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love" included the caption "Get in formation, we came to slay" and referenced another Beyoncé song, "Formation," along with a Beyoncé concert.
Sony argued that Marriott was "well aware" of music's impact on social media visibility, noting that "including these popular sound recordings leads users to discover posts when searching on the platform for content incorporating certain artists, songs or music-related tags."
The lawsuit alleged that Sony had begun notifying Marriott about unauthorized music use as early as January 2020—more than four years before filing suit. Despite these warnings and initial tolling agreements, Marriott continued posting allegedly infringing content, supporting Sony's claim of willful infringement.
Under U.S. copyright law, Marriott faced potential statutory damages up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement—totaling approximately $140 million for the 931 songs cited. That exposure didn't account for additional songs Sony suggested it would discover during litigation.
The case settled in October 2024. Terms remain confidential, but the joint dismissal with prejudice means neither party can reopen the matter. While the settlement amount is unknown, the potential damages created substantial pressure for Marriott to resolve the case rather than face trial.
In March 2025, Sony Music sued the University of Southern California for using over 170 songs in 283 promotional videos across 30 social media accounts affiliated with USC's athletics program. The complaint targeted content promoting USC's sports teams across TikTok and Instagram, featuring artists including Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, and AC/DC.
Sony sought statutory damages of $150,000 per song—potentially totaling tens of millions of dollars. The complaint alleged Sony had warned USC about the infringement since 2021, yet the university continued using copyrighted music to boost social media engagement and promote ticket and merchandise sales.
USC's athletic program operates with commercial characteristics—generating millions in revenue, selling tickets and merchandise, and competing for student-athlete talent. These commercial elements undermine potential fair use defenses that might protect educational content. Courts distinguish between core educational activities (teaching, scholarship) and commercial auxiliary functions (athletics marketing, fundraising).
The case particularly highlighted a viral video called "Arrival of the Trojan," featuring the song "Like That" just days after it debuted on charts. The video garnered millions of views online and played on the stadium jumbotron before every game. Each viewing represented potential lost licensing revenue for Sony and its artists—a key factor in calculating damages.
Warner Music Group filed a lawsuit against Crumbl Cookies in April 2025, alleging the rapidly expanding dessert chain used 159 copyrighted songs by artists including Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Ariana Grande, Bruno Mars, and Coldplay in TikTok and Instagram videos without authorization.
The complaint detailed how Crumbl strategically paired songs with related products—using Lil Mosey's "Blueberry Faygo" to promote blueberry cheesecake cookies, Coldplay's "Yellow" for yellow sugar cookies, and BTS's "Butter" for Kentucky Butter Cake cookies. Warner argued these weren't incidental uses of background music but deliberate synchronization of copyrighted works with visual content to enhance marketing effectiveness.
Warner claimed it sent Crumbl a cease-and-desist letter in August 2023, but the company continued posting allegedly infringing content. In a revealing January 2024 TikTok caption, Crumbl itself stated: "We were gonna make a funny video to promote Mystery Cookie, but legal said we can't use any trending audios"—suggesting the company understood the restrictions even as violations continued.
Warner sought up to $150,000 per work in statutory damages, potentially totaling $23.85 million if maximum penalties were applied to all 159 cited works. Additionally, Warner requested a permanent injunction preventing future infringement.
The case remains ongoing, but the potential damages would represent a significant portion of Crumbl's valuation. For a company that built its brand substantially through social media marketing, the music that helped drive that growth has become an existential financial threat.
Bang Energy faced perhaps the most comprehensive music copyright enforcement, with Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group all filing separate lawsuits for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in TikTok content posted between approximately 2019 and 2022.
Universal's suit, filed in April 2021, alleged Bang used approximately 140 songs without authorization. Sony followed in August 2021, citing at least 132 songs across about 209 videos. Warner filed in September 2022, alleging infringement of 187 songs by artists including The Weeknd, Justin Bieber, and Dua Lipa.
The cases alleged both direct infringement from Bang's own social media accounts and contributory/vicarious infringement for content created by influencers Bang had partnered with. Bang had structured relationships with social media influencers through agreements compensating them for promoting Bang products, with Bang maintaining approval rights over content.
Courts ruled against Bang on multiple counts. In July 2022, a Florida court found Bang liable for direct infringement for approximately 140 videos posted to its own accounts. In September 2022, another ruling granted Sony partial summary judgment, finding Bang liable for direct infringement on 264 videos and vicarious infringement for influencer content, though declining summary judgment on contributory infringement claims.
The rulings established that Bang "does not dispute that they have directly posted approximately 264 videos utilizing portions of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works" and that Bang "earned a direct financial benefit from the infringement." Courts found Bang had sufficient control over influencer partnerships to establish vicarious liability, even though Bang didn't technically post influencer content itself.
While final damages remain undisclosed due to likely confidential settlements, Bang faced potential statutory damages across three separate cases involving hundreds of songs—exposure easily reaching into tens of millions of dollars. For a company that had reached over $1 billion in annual revenue by promoting itself aggressively on social media, the music lawsuits represented a significant threat to profitability.
In September 2024, Associated Production Music (APM)—a joint venture between Sony Music Publishing and Universal Music Publishing—sued pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson for "rampant infringement" involving 30 songs used across 79 social media posts on YouTube and Facebook.
Unlike cases involving popular commercial music, APM's lawsuit centered on production music—instrumental tracks specifically created for licensing to media productions. Many brands assume production music faces fewer restrictions, but it remains copyrighted material requiring proper synchronization licenses for commercial use.
APM claimed it had repeatedly contacted Johnson & Johnson about unlicensed uses but that the company "refused to obtain proper licenses or admit wrongdoing." The lawsuit alleged J&J engaged in infringement through posts promoting various subsidiary brands.
APM sought up to $150,000 in statutory damages per work, potentially totaling nearly $12 million for the 79 alleged infringements. The case demonstrated that no category of music—even instrumental production tracks designed for licensing—is exempt from commercial licensing requirements.
Designer Shoe Warehouse became a target for music industry enforcement from multiple angles. Sony Music filed suit in August 2025 alleging "systematic and willful infringement" involving songs including Beyoncé's "Formation" and "Crazy in Love," Doja Cat's "Paint the Town Red," and Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas Is You."
Warner Music Group filed a separate suit against DSW in May 2025, citing more than 200 unlicensed tracks in social media posts, many involving influencers. The complaint alleged DSW encouraged, collaborated with, and paid influencers to create videos featuring its products and copyrighted music.
Both lawsuits emphasized that DSW uploaded copyrighted recordings as "original sound" on social media platforms, apparently misrepresenting that posts contained no copyrighted recordings or that DSW had obtained necessary permissions. This allegedly violated TikTok's Music Usage Confirmation policy, which requires users to confirm either that content contains no copyrighted music or that they've obtained all necessary licenses.
The multiple lawsuits from different major labels suggest coordinated industry enforcement efforts targeting DSW as a repeat infringer. Combined potential damages across these cases could reach tens of millions of dollars, with each label citing hundreds of songs across numerous posts.
Common elements connect these lawsuits, revealing the music industry's enforcement strategy and brands' recurring mistakes:
Advance warnings ignored: In multiple cases—Marriott, USC, Crumbl, Johnson & Johnson—music companies notified brands about infringement before filing suit. Continued violations after notification support willful infringement claims, raising potential statutory damages to maximum levels.
Strategic music selection: Brands didn't randomly use songs; they deliberately chose popular, recognizable tracks to boost engagement. This strategic selection undermines arguments that music use was incidental or minimal.
Platform library misunderstanding: Brands consistently assumed that music available on platforms was available for their commercial use. This fundamental misunderstanding drove systematic infringement across hundreds or thousands of posts.
Influencer complications: Several cases involved not just brand accounts but influencer partnerships, extending liability through contributory and vicarious infringement theories.
Massive potential damages: Statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per work, or up to $150,000 for willful infringement, create exposure that quickly scales beyond any reasonable licensing costs brands might have paid.
While most cases settle under confidential terms, the settlements that have emerged suggest substantial payments. The pressure to settle stems from the mathematical certainty of statutory damages: if a brand used 200 songs without authorization, even minimum statutory damages of $750 per work total $150,000. Maximum willful damages for the same 200 songs reach $30 million.
Brands facing these calculations must weigh settlement costs against litigation expenses plus potential judgments. Even if brands believe they have partial defenses, the risk of seven- or eight-figure awards makes settlement economically rational. Music companies understand this leverage, enabling them to pursue aggressive enforcement with high settlement rates.
For brands watching these cases unfold, the message is unambiguous: social media music licensing isn't optional, platform music libraries don't grant commercial rights, and copyright holders are actively monitoring branded content for unlicensed use. What starts as a viral post can end as a federal lawsuit, transforming marketing success into financial disaster with damages that make proper licensing look like a bargain.
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.