X launches antitrust lawsuit against the music industry

X’s slogan for 2026 could be “one battle after another” with the platform launch a new lawsuitthis 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 music licensing disputes, which have been going on for some time several years. Music publishers have attempted to enter into licensing agreements with

Twitter had negotiated licensing deals with several labels, but when Elon Musk acquired the app, he ended those discussions, finding them too expensive, especially considering X’s limited music use.

Musk believes that music use on As such, rather than negotiating licensing agreements, X has relied on the safe harbor protections contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which states that platforms are not liable for posts from users that infringe music copyright, as long as the platform removes this content upon request and prohibits repeat offenders.

In 2023, a group of seventeen music publishers filed a lawsuit against Xin Federal District Court, alleging copyright infringement on 1,700 songs and seeking damages of up to $250 million.

X heeft dit niet betaald, en is dat ook niet van plan, wat, zo beweert X, heeft geleid tot dit laatste plan, waarin de muziekindustrie, als groep, X nu probeert te dwingen licentieovereenkomsten te ondertekenen.

In his legal submitX says the NMPA is “weaponized.” DMCA takedown notices as part of a coordinated effort, in collaboration with the major music labels, to put pressure on to sign music licensing agreements to pay for such use.

According to the legal filing:

“Instead of participating in a competitive process and negotiating a license individually for their catalogs, the music publishers conspired through NMPA in a joint refusal to allow theall with X independent. The purpose of this plan is to force X to license musicals works from the industry as a whole, denying X the benefit of music competition publishers – a goal that aligns with that of NMPA President and CEO David Israelite admonishment that the music publishing industry needs to “work together” to make the pie bigger, and not turn against each other to try to get a bigger piece of the pie.’”

X says it had initially discussed licensing deals with music publishers, which it said gave it more ability to negotiate on varying grounds. But possibly…

“Warner Chappell made it clear he was aware of the plan and threatened X to join in worth the trouble if X didn’t license it. When X didn’t take licenses from the [major labels], they joined the conspiracy to leverage collective monopoly power and force X to make takeovers licenses from all Music publishers at super competitive rates.”

To be clear,

It’s hard to say how that will go, because, as mentioned,

That could be why the NMPA wants to coordinate and strengthen its efforts to force X to pay, but that could also qualify as coercive conduct, which the court may take a dim view of.

Does X actually have to pay for music licensing, just like all other apps?

Well, there’s probably an argument that X is less dependent on music and therefore shouldn’t be covered by the same agreement as, say, TikTok. But on the other hand, X is also putting more emphasis on video content over time, so it would benefit greatly from the engagement generated by music-based content.

But either way, it looks like Elon doesn’t want to pay, which ties in with his other attempts at not paying rentlicense fees, hosting costs, staffetc.

It appears a protracted legal battle will likely delay further payments on this front, and for Elon’s lawyers, it’s likely just another task in their inbox.