Warner Music Sues Ray-Ban Owner Over Unlicensed Taylor Swift Clips

A Warner Music lawsuit filed in New York on 9 October accuses six Ray-Ban-linked companies of using copyrighted music in social media adverts without permission.

The businesses are linked to EssilorLuxottica, and the 23 Warner-affiliated plaintiffs allege unauthorised use of at least 427 sound recordings and musical compositions.

Warner says it warned the businesses before bringing the case in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The disputed videos promoted eyewear brands including Ray-Ban, Oakley and Sunglass Hut.

The plaintiffs seek up to $150,000 (£114,000) in statutory damages per work. Across 427 works, that could total $64.05 million (approximately £48.5 million), although no award has been made.

Warner Music Details Songs Used in Ray-Ban and Oakley Adverts

The defendants are Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica of America, Oakley, Chapter 4 Corp., Costa Del Mar and Eye Buy Direct. EssilorLuxottica itself is not separately named as a defendant.

According to the federal copyright complaint, the brands had a combined 36.14 million followers on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. That total measures neither unique followers nor video views.

Warner identifies a Ray-Ban TikTok clip allegedly featuring Miley Cyrus's 'Flowers.' It also points to an Oakley Instagram post allegedly using Led Zeppelin's 'Bring It on Home.'

A Sunglass Hut advertisement allegedly used Dua Lipa's 'Training Season,' while a Ray-Ban gift guide featured Wham!'s 'Last Christmas.' These are allegations, not judicial findings.

Separately, reports on the lawsuit's copyright schedule identify compositions including Taylor Swift's 'You Belong with Me' and Travis Scott's 'Sicko Mode.' Those references concern publishing rights and do not establish that the performers' original recordings appeared in the challenged adverts.

Warner argues the music was more than incidental background sound. The complaint calls the works an 'essential and inseparable component' of videos designed to attract attention and promote products. It claims artists and songwriters lost control over where their work appeared.

Warner Music Says Earlier Warnings Failed To Stop Alleged Use

Warner says it began discovering the alleged infringements in July 2025. It does not say when every video first appeared.

According to the filing, the plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter on 17 December 2025, identifying 411 copyrighted works. They sent a second letter on 6 May 2026 over further disputed material.

The complaint alleges that some previously identified posts remained online and that new videos continued appearing. The court has not tested these assertions.

Warner also challenges the brands' relationships with social media influencers. It alleges that employees commissioned, reviewed or reposted promotional clips, potentially exposing the companies to liability for third-party content.

The suit alleges direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Warner further claims the businesses disregarded platform warnings about music licences, an allegation that does not establish intentional wrongdoing.

TikTok's commercial music guidance says businesses should use its pre-cleared Commercial Music Library for promotional posts. Other songs may require separate permissions.

Warner also disputes an 'original audio' label on the Sunglass Hut post featuring Dua Lipa. It says the description was misleading, but no court has determined that the companies made a false representation.

Warner Music's $64 Million Claim Faces Legal Tests

Under US copyright law, the $150,000 maximum per work requires proof of wilful infringement and satisfaction of other legal conditions. Eligibility may also depend on the status and timing of copyright registrations.

Warner alternatively seeks actual damages and any profits attributable to proven infringement. It also requests an injunction, legal costs and lawyers' fees.

The company argues that recognisable music helped the eyewear brands build an audience and sell products. It has not established how much revenue, if any, the disputed music generated.

The wider issue is the gap between a song being available in a social media app and its being cleared for advertising. Recording rights and rights to the underlying composition may require different permissions.

The complaint remains Warner's account of the alleged conduct, not a judicial finding. Whether the six companies infringed any rights, and what remedies might follow, remains for the legal proceedings to determine.