X’s tagline for 2026 may well be “one battle after another,” with the platform launching yet another legal case, this time against the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), along with a group of publishers, over music licensing, and the negotiation of music rights payments based on X usage.
Which, if successful, could save the company hundreds of millions of dollars.
The case stems from X’s disputes over music licensing, which have been ongoing for several years. Music publishers have been seeking to arrange licensing deals with X, similar to the deals that they have in place with all the other major social apps, which give platform users the ability to include artists’ songs in their posts, and ensure the artists get some form of payment for such usage.
Twitter had been negotiating licensing deals with several labels, but when Elon Musk took over the app, he ended those discussions, viewing them as too expensive, especially given X’s limited music use.
Musk’s view is that music usage is only minor on X, as opposed to, say, TikTok or Instagram, where popular songs can become major trends. As such, instead of negotiating licensing deals, X has relied on the safe harbor protections that are contained within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which state that platforms aren’t liable for users’ posts that infringe on music copyright, so long as the platform removes said content on request, and bans repeat offenders.
In 2023, a group of seventeen music publishers filed suit against X, in the Federal District Court, alleging copyright infringement on 1,700 songs and demanding up to $250 million in damages.
X has not paid this, and doesn’t plan to, which, X claims, is what led to this latest scheme, in which the music industry, as a group, is now seeking to force X to sign licensing agreements.
In its legal filing, X says that the NMPA has “weaponized” DMCA takedown requests as part of a coordinated effort, in collaboration with the major music labels, to pressure X into signing music licensing deals to pay for such usage.
As per the legal filing:
“Rather than engage in a competitive process and individually negotiate a license for their catalogs, the Music Publishers colluded through NMPA in a concerted refusal to deal with X independently. The object of this scheme is to coerce X into taking licenses to musical works from the industry as a whole, denying X the benefit of competition between music publishers - a goal that is in keeping with NMPA President and CEO David Israelite’s admonition that the music-publishing industry should ‘work together ‘to expand the pie,’ and not turn on one another to try and get a bigger piece of the pie.’”
X says that, initially, it had discussed licensing deals with music publishers, which it claims gave it more opportunity to negotiate on variable grounds. But eventually…
“Warner Chappell made clear it was aware of the scheme and threatened X that it would join in the effort if X would not take a license from it. When X did not take licenses from the [major labels], they joined the conspiracy to leverage collective monopoly power and coerce X into acquiring licenses from all Music Publishers at supra competitive rates.”
So, to be clear, X isn’t trying to avoid paying for music licensing entirely, but it’s looking to push back on an NMPA-run program which it says aims to squeeze it for more money for music licensing.
It’s hard to say how that’ll go, because as noted, X hasn’t negotiated individual arrangements with publishers, even when it’s had the opportunity to do so, and has actively sought to avoid paying for music usage through DCMA protections.
Which could be why the NMPA is looking to coordinate and beef up its effort to force X to pay, but that could also qualify as coercive behavior, which the court may take a dim view of.
Should X actually pay for music licensing, like all the other apps?
Well, there is probably an argument that X is less reliant on music, and therefore shouldn’t be under the same agreement as, say, TikTok. But then again, X is also putting more emphasis on video content over time, so it would be deriving a lot of benefit from the engagement generated by music-based content.
But either way, it seems that Elon doesn’t want to pay, which aligns with his other efforts to avoid paying rent, licensing fees, hosting expenses, staff, etc.
A protracted legal battle seems like it will probably stall any further payment on this front, and for Elon’s lawyers, it’s probably just another task in their inbox.
