X’s legal play against the music industry just hit a new level.
X has officially filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) and a coalition of music publishers, igniting a new chapter in its ongoing battle over music licensing and payment negotiations. This lawsuit, if victorious, could potentially save the platform hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing costs.
The conflict traces back to long-standing disputes regarding music licensing, which X has been navigating for years. Music publishers have sought to forge licensing agreements with X, similar to those established with other major social media platforms. These deals would allow users to incorporate artists’ songs into their posts while ensuring artists receive appropriate compensation.
Initially, Twitter had been in talks with several record labels regarding potential licensing agreements. However, following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform, those negotiations were abruptly halted. Musk deemed them financially burdensome, particularly given X’s relatively minor reliance on music compared to platforms like TikTok or Instagram, where music can drive significant user engagement.
Instead of striking licensing deals, X has opted to utilize the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provisions. These provisions protect platforms from liability for user-generated copyright infringement, provided they promptly remove infringing content upon request and take action against repeat offenders.
In a notable twist, in 2023, a coalition of 17 music publishers launched a lawsuit against X in federal court, accusing it of infringing copyrights on 1,700 songs and seeking damages upwards of $250 million. X has flatly refused to comply and claims that the recent lawsuit is a direct response to the music publishers’ coordinated efforts to force it into licensing agreements.
Within its legal filings, X asserts that the NMPA has weaponized DMCA takedown requests in a collaborative effort with major labels to pressure the platform into signing licenses. The filing states: “Rather than engage in a competitive process and individually negotiate a license for their catalogs, the Music Publishers colluded through NMPA… to coerce X into taking licenses… denying X the benefit of competition between music publishers.”
X contends that it initially considered licensing negotiations, which would have allowed for more flexible terms. However, it claims that Warner Chappell threatened to join the effort against them if they didn’t agree to a licensing deal. As a result, when X declined to license from major labels, they allegedly united to leverage their collective power against the platform.
The company’s current stance is not about avoiding payment for music licensing altogether, but rather pushing back against what it perceives as the NMPA’s attempts to extort excessive fees. The implications of this lawsuit could establish new precedents regarding how platforms negotiate music rights.
Determining whether X should engage in music licensing like its competitors isn’t straightforward. While it may not rely heavily on music now, the platform is increasingly emphasizing video content, which could benefit from musical elements. Yet, this reluctance to pay stands in line with Musk’s broader strategy of minimizing expenses across the board.
As this legal saga unfolds, it seems likely that the protracted battle will delay any potential payments for music licensing, leaving X caught in a web of legal maneuvering while its executives grapple with the fallout.