Sony v. Bang Energy: the ruling that made brands liable for influencer videos
Short answer
In September 2022, a federal judge in Florida ruled that Bang Energy's maker, Vital Pharmaceuticals, had directly infringed Sony Music's recordings in about 286 promotional videos on TikTok, Instagram and other platforms, and was vicariously liable for Sony songs in videos by influencers it paid, because it benefited from them and could supervise them. The court also found no license from Sony to the platforms that would let users use the songs commercially. Damages were left for a jury; Bang's parent filed for bankruptcy weeks later.
Background
Sony Music Entertainment and its labels sued Vital Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Bang Energy drinks, and its CEO in 2021, alleging that Bang used Sony recordings without licenses in promotional videos on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and Triller, including videos made by influencers Bang paid. Bang's marketing was built on social video and a large influencer network, which made it an early and visible test case.
Universal Music and Warner Music also brought claims against Bang over music in its social content around the same period. The Sony case is the one that produced the key ruling.
The September 2022 ruling
On September 14, 2022, U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas granted Sony's motion for partial summary judgment in part (Music Business Worldwide; Pryor Cashman). Summary judgment means the judge decided those issues without a trial, because the key facts weren't genuinely in dispute.
Direct infringement. It was undisputed that Bang directly posted about 286 videos with Sony music. Bang contested 22 of them, arguing some were remixes, used a different tempo or singer, were very short, or were unrecognisable. The court rejected those arguments. A sped-up or shortened version of a recording is still the recording.
No platform license. The court found there were no licenses from Sony to the platforms that would allow end users to use the recordings for commercial purposes. That's the point most brands miss: the songs available inside TikTok or Instagram are not licensed for a brand's marketing.
Vicarious liability for influencers. Sony argued Bang was responsible for influencer videos containing its music. The court agreed on vicarious liability, citing two elements: Bang received a direct financial benefit from the videos, and it had the "right and ability to supervise" the influencers.
Contributory liability. The court didn't grant summary judgment on contributory infringement, which requires showing the brand knew about the infringement. Bang argued that knowing about a video isn't the same as knowing it infringes, and that it reasonably believed the influencers' use was allowed. That issue was left for trial.
What happened next
Damages and the remaining issues were set for a jury. Then, on October 10, 2022, Vital Pharmaceuticals filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which generally pauses lawsuits against the company. Monster Beverage agreed to buy Vital's assets in June 2023 and completed the purchase on July 31, 2023 (background). No damages verdict in the Sony case was ever reported. So the ruling stands as a decision on liability, not on how much a brand pays.
Why this ruling matters so much
Before Bang, many brands assumed influencer content was the influencer's problem: they chose the song, they posted it, they were responsible. The ruling shows a court applying ordinary copyright principles to the creator economy. If you pay creators to promote you and you can tell them what to post, a court may treat their infringing videos as your liability too.
It also closed off a common assumption about the platforms. "The app let us pick the song" isn't a license for commercial use. And the remix arguments failed, which matters for every sped-up, slowed or re-edited trending sound.
Lessons for brands with creator programs
- You can't outsource the music decision. If you pay and direct creators, check their audio as if it were your own post.
- Put music rules in the brief and the contract. Approved sources only, and a warranty from the creator. See our influencer contract music clause.
- Edits don't change the answer. Sped-up, shortened and remixed versions were still infringing in this case.
- Don't rely on the app library. The court found no license allowing users to use the songs commercially.
- Check before you boost. Paid amplification makes the commercial purpose impossible to dispute.
A scenario
A fitness supplement brand works with 200 micro-influencers on a commission and free-product basis. The brief covers product claims and hashtags, but not music. Most creators use trending gym tracks. The brand reposts the best videos weekly and runs a few as Spark Ads.
Under the reasoning in Bang, the brand has a problem on three levels: its own reposts and ads (direct), and the creators' sponsored posts (potentially vicarious, because it rewards them and controls the brief). The fix is practical: a music line in every brief, a warranty in creator terms, and a check on anything the brand reposts or boosts.
How later complaints build on it
Every major brand complaint since has included creator content. Marriott's listed 18 paid influencer posts, Kroger's cites a creator's #ad video with a discount code and alleges the brand approved creative before it ran, and Quince's describes a program of around 300 creators a month. The Bang ruling is why labels include those posts: there's a court decision holding a brand responsible for them.
Common questions
What did the court decide in Sony v. Bang Energy?
That Bang directly infringed Sony recordings in about 286 videos, and was vicariously liable for influencer videos because it benefited and could supervise them.
Did Bang have to pay damages?
Damages were left for a jury, but Bang's parent filed for bankruptcy in October 2022 and no damages verdict was reported.
Does TikTok's music library license brands to use songs?
The court found no license from Sony to the platforms allowing users to use the recordings commercially.
Did sped-up or remixed versions avoid infringement?
No. The court rejected Bang's arguments that remixes, tempo changes or short clips weren't infringing.
What is vicarious liability?
Responsibility for someone else's infringement when you benefit financially and have the right and ability to supervise them.
Part of: Lawsuits and claims
Related guides
General information, not legal advice. Platform rules and licenses change; check the current terms or ask your lawyer about your situation. Lawsuit figures are as reported and represent claims, not findings, unless noted.