That Trending Sound Isn’t Free: Your Influencer's Music Could Be Your Brand's Liability

By: Danielle Yurkew

Record labels are suing brands over music used in social media content, and not just their own posts, but their influencers' posts too. The legal theory is well-established, and the exposure is larger than most marketing teams realize.

The Platform's Music License Isn't Your Brand's License

If your brand posts videos on TikTok or Instagram, you are probably using music. If you work with influencers, they are using music to promote your brand too. What most brand owners don’t know is that neither is covered by the licensing agreements that social media platforms have with record labels.

TikTok and Instagram negotiate blanket licenses with music rights holders so that individual users can post videos containing copyrighted songs. Those licenses are for personal, non-commercial use. The moment a brand uses the same music to sell a product or service, the license does not apply. A separate sync license is required. This distinction has now produced a significant body of federal copyright litigation, and the brands on the losing end of it are not fringe players.

In April 2026, Universal Music Group, Capitol Records, and Concord Music Group filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of California against Quince, a direct-to-consumer fashion, bedding, and luggage company reportedly valued at $10.1 billion. The complaint alleges that Quince used 67 sound recordings and 71 compositions without authorization in its TikTok and Instagram posts, featuring works by artists including Sabrina Carpenter, Billie Eilish, Zara Larsson, Fleetwood Mac, and Lana Del Rey. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work. That exposure, applied across 138 works, is not a rounding error.

The Influencer Problem

What makes the Quince case particularly instructive is the theory the labels are pursuing regarding influencer content; they are not only targeting music used on Quince’s own accounts. Quince works with approximately 300 creators per month, and the lawsuit alleges that Quince directed, compensated, reviewed, and promoted influencer content, and in some cases reposted influencer videos while replacing the original audio with copyrighted songs. On that basis, the plaintiffs are pursuing claims for both contributory and vicarious infringement, meaning they are arguing that Quince is liable for infringing content it did not directly create.

This is not a novel legal theory. A federal court has already held a brand vicariously liable for influencer content under closely analogous facts, and the Quince complaint cites rulings against energy drink maker Bang Energy as precedent. What the case does is bring the theory into sharp focus for brands that rely heavily on creator partnerships: the question is not just what your brand posts, but how much control your brand exercises over what creators’ post on its behalf.

The more a brand briefs content, reviews submissions, requires reshoots, and reposts finished videos, the stronger the argument is that the brand is responsible for the music used in those videos.

What This Means for Your Brand’s Partnerships

Quince was put on notice of these issues in September 2024 and continued posting the allegedly infringing content into March 2026. That timeline matters because willful infringement supports the maximum statutory damages figure.

If you run an influencer program or paid creator partnerships, there are several things worth examining now. First, your content briefs should not specify or suggest particular songs to use. If a creator uses a track that works for your brand aesthetically, that is a red flag, not a win. Second, your influencer agreements should address music specifically, placing the responsibility for proper licensing on the creator for their own content, and making clear that any content associated with your brand requires cleared music. Third, if you manage your own social accounts and select music from platform libraries, you should verify that the library tracks are licensed for commercial use, not just personal use. Many platform libraries include commercial-use options, but they are not the default.

Quince is not the first brand to end up in federal court over this, and it will not be the last. Major music labels have filed similar suits against Gymshark, Marriott, Crumbl, and DSW, among others. The pattern is consistent: a brand uses trending music to drive engagement, labels send a demand letter, the brand fails to fully address it, and litigation follows.

When sound is part of your marketing, it's important for your legal review to consider where that sound comes from.