Warner Music Group record and publishing companies sue Luxottica entities, alleging unlicensed music in social-media marketing videos

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1 in No. 1:26-cv-08965, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed October 9, 2026 (36 pages), with Exhibit A / Schedule A of copyrighted works (Document 1-1, 33 pages). Counsel for the plaintiffs is Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial. (Compl. pp. 1, 35 to 36.)

The plaintiffs are Atlantic Music Group LLC; Atlantic Recording Corporation; Bad Boy Records LLC; Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.; Elektra Entertainment LLC; Elektra Music Group Inc.; Fueled by Ramen LLC; Nonesuch Records Inc.; Rhino Entertainment Company; Rhino Entertainment LLC; TenThousand Projects Holdings LLC; Warner Music Inc.; Warner Music International Services Limited; Warner Records Inc.; Warner Records LLC; Warner Records/SIRE Ventures LLC; 300 Entertainment LLC; Intersong U.S.A., Inc.; Unichappell Music Inc.; W Chappell Music Corp.; W.C.M. Music Corp.; Warner Chappell Music, Inc.; and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. The complaint refers to them collectively as Plaintiffs or WMG and states that each is an indirect subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp. (Compl. pp. 1 to 2, 4.)

The defendants are Luxottica Group S.p.A.; Luxottica of America, Inc.; Oakley, Inc.; Chapter 4 Corp.; Costa Del Mar, Inc.; and Eye Buy Direct, Inc. The complaint refers to them collectively as Defendants or Luxottica and states that they operate for and in service of EssilorLuxottica. (Compl. pp. 1 to 2.)

What the complaint alleges

It alleges that the defendants advertise eyewear brands such as Ray-Ban, Oakley, Costa Del Mar, and others through social-media "commercials" and influencer videos ("Luxottica Videos") on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, and that those videos frequently feature the plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions listed on Schedule A without permission or payment. It alleges unauthorized use of at least 427 of those works. (Compl. pp. 2 to 4.)

It further alleges that the defendants deliberately violated warnings from Instagram, TikTok, Meta, and YouTube that copyrighted music could not be used in posts without first obtaining a license; that the plaintiffs sent cease-and-desist letters on December 17, 2025 (identifying 411 works) and May 6, 2026; and that, as of filing, the defendants had not removed all previously identified uses and continued to post videos containing the plaintiffs' works. (Compl. pp. 4, 30.)

The first cause of action alleges direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., citing unauthorized reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, and public performance under 17 U.S.C. 106(1), (2), (3), (4), and/or (6). The second cause of action alleges contributory copyright infringement based on influencer-created videos. The third cause of action alleges vicarious copyright infringement based on the defendants' alleged right and ability to control those videos and a direct financial benefit. The prayer seeks a permanent injunction, statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed work under 17 U.S.C. 504(c) or, in the alternative, actual damages and profits under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. 505. (Compl. pp. 30 to 35.)