Universal Music Sues Chili’s Over Copyrighted Music in Social Media Ads 🌶

Hey there! 👋

Looks like Chili’s (an American restaurant chain) needs to turn down the volume on their social media game! Universal Music Group (UMG) is suing the restaurant chain over the unauthorised use of popular songs on their social media ads. From Nicki Minaj to Justin Bieber, this case could cost them up to $12 million in damages.

Let's dive into what happened, why it matters, and what this means for law firms.

Don't have time for the full scoop? No worries, we've got you covered with a quick summary: click here

What’s Happening? 🤷‍♀️

UMG's lawsuit targets Chili's social media presence across Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. The restaurant chain allegedly used hit songs from major artists as soundtracks for their promotional content without securing proper licenses.

UMG’s lawyers emphasise that this was not accidental, and Chili’s deliberately chose popular music in order to draw the attention of consumers in the fast-moving world of social media.

The stakes are high, with 38 alleged recording copyright violations and 42 alleged publishing copyright violations. This isn’t the first time Chili’s has had copyright issues. Just three months earlier, Chilli’s was accused of copyright infringement by the Beastie Boys. This case remains pending.

Why is This Happening Now?

Large social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram allow users to access a multitude of licensed music for use in their videos. However, these songs cannot be used for commercial or promotional use and instead require a separate license. This distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years, with many companies failing to secure these licenses.

Is There a Wider Trend?

This is following a wider trend of music companies targeting organisations for the unauthorised use of their music in social media marketing. Similar cases include Sony Music suing cosmetics brand OFRA for repeated copyright infringement and APM Music filing a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for alleged copyright violations in promotional videos.

What Does This Mean for the Legal World? ⚖️

The growing trend of copyright infringement lawsuits, such as the one with UMG and Brinker International, has implications for both intellectual property (IP) law and law firms. With more cases like that of UMG and Brinker International, courts will likely establish new precedents for how copyright laws apply to social media advertising. This may lead to tighter regulations or guidance on licensing.

With a rise in lawsuits from music companies against businesses over social media marketing, law firms specialising in IP and copyright may see increased demand for litigation services.

The ripple effects of these cases may impact clients who frequently run social media marketing campaigns, making them wish to seek legal advice earlier in their marketing strategy process to avoid getting sued. As a result, lawyers may offer advisory services to help businesses avoid and manage copyright issues proactively.

🗞 Other news…

Brazil lifts ban on X (previously Twitter) 🇧🇷

Brazil’s supreme court has reversed its ban on X, following the company’s payment of a 28 million reais fine. X has also addressed the concerns that initially promoted the ban. For example, X has agreed to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and block accounts that spread false information. The platform’s 22 million Brazilian users can now access the service once again

US judge orders Google to open app store to rivals 📱

A US court has ordered Google to open up its app store to competitors following a lawsuit by Epic Games. The court found that Google was unfairly limiting competition in the app market. As a result, Google must now allow other companies' app stores on its Google Play platform for three years. Users will be able to download these alternative stores without seeing warning messages. This decision aims to increase competition in the Android app market, potentially leading to more choices and lower costs for users and developers.

Water companies will pay back £160m to consumers 💧

The UK water regulator, Ofwat, has ordered 13 water companies to refund £158 million to customers due to poor performance, especially regarding pollution reduction. The companies were supposed to decrease water pollution by 30% between 2020 and 2025 but have only achieved a 15% reduction so far. As a result, customers will receive small refunds on their 2025-2026 bills, with Thames Water owing the largest amount at £56.8 million. However, these refunds will only slightly reduce bills for most customers.

I hope you enjoyed this article. See you next week! 👋

Written by Lyna Bahri