Warner Music v. Crumbl: the TikTok lawsuit, explained

Written by Jason Lee, Co-Founder · Reviewed by Hani Sedyono, Head of Operations & Legal · Reviewed October 18, 2026

What Warner alleged

Warner Music Group, along with labels and publishing companies in its group, filed suit against Crumbl in a federal court in Utah on April 22, 2025 (Music Business Worldwide). The complaint alleged that Crumbl used at least 159 of Warner's recordings and musical compositions in promotional videos posted to its TikTok and Instagram accounts.

The artists named included Dua Lipa, Bruno Mars, Lizzo, Taylor Swift, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé. That's the kind of catalog a brand reaches for when it wants a video to feel current, which is exactly why it's valuable to the label.

Warner sought statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work, which across 159 works comes to roughly $23.85 million, plus a permanent injunction. As with every case in this series, that figure is the statutory ceiling, not an award.

The detail everyone remembers

The complaint quoted one of Crumbl's own videos. In January 2024, Crumbl posted a TikTok saying: "We were gonna make a funny video to promote Mystery Cookie, but legal said we can't use any trending audios."

It was meant as a joke. In a complaint it reads differently: as evidence that the company knew commercial use of trending audio needed clearance. Knowledge matters because US law allows higher statutory damages for willful infringement. A brand that jokes publicly about the rule, while other posts break it, gives the other side a useful exhibit.

Crumbl's public response at the time was measured: it said it was "aware of the legal action," was "actively reviewing the matter," and "respects the rights of artists and creators."

How it ended

On May 22, 2026, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle, and the court stayed the case. A settlement was finalised in June 2026 (Digital Music News; Bloomberg Law). Financial terms were not made public, and there's nothing in the reporting about an admission of liability or ongoing restrictions.

So the case doesn't tell us what Crumbl paid. It does tell us that a label was willing to sue a well-known, fast-growing consumer brand over organic social videos, and to carry the case for a year.

Lessons for brands

Organic posts count. Crumbl's videos were posts on its own accounts, the kind of daily content most brands publish without a second thought. You don't need to be running paid ads to be exposed.

Your own content can be evidence. Public comments, internal emails and even jokes about music rules can be used to argue a brand knew better. The safest position is a rule that's actually followed.

Food and beverage is squarely in scope. Crumbl's marketing is built on weekly flavor drops, which means constant new content. High-volume content calendars produce high-volume risk if nobody checks the audio.

Settlement doesn't mean cheap. Even without a disclosed figure, a year of litigation means legal fees, management time and press coverage. Avoiding it costs much less.

Where Crumbl sits among the other cases

Crumbl was one of a cluster of Warner suits against consumer brands. Warner sued DSW in 2025 over 200+ works, PacSun in December 2025 over at least 290, and Luxottica in October 2026 over at least 427. Sony and Universal have run parallel campaigns against Marriott, Kroger and Quince. The common thread is high-volume social content using popular songs on brand accounts, often with creator posts mixed in.

Crumbl's case is also a reminder that settling doesn't make the issue disappear for everyone else. Each complaint gives labels a template and gives other brands' lawyers a list of what to look for. When one brand in a category is sued, its competitors usually have similar content sitting on their own accounts.

It's worth noticing what Crumbl's marketing looks like now. Brands that have been through a claim tend to move to licensed library music or original audio across the board. That's the end state most brands reach eventually; the only question is whether they get there before or after a letter.

A scenario for a consumer brand

A snack brand launches a new flavor every month. The social team makes three or four TikToks per launch, usually cut to whatever song is trending that week, because that's what performs. Over two years that's around 300 videos, perhaps a third with chart songs. Nobody has ever checked.

A check would show those posts in a list, green, yellow or red, with the fix next to each: swap the track or archive the post. A one-page rule for the team (licensed library, the commercial music library or original audio) stops the list growing back. That's a week of work, not a year of litigation.

What to do this week

1. Check your last 90 days on TikTok and Instagram for chart songs and trending sounds.
2. Fix the posts still live, starting with anything boosted or pinned.
3. Write the rule down and share it with your team and creators.
4. Watch what you say in public about music rules. Make sure your posts match it.

Common questions

Part of: Lawsuits and claims

Related guides

• Lawsuit tracker: brands sued over music in social posts
• Music copyright for food and beverage brands
• Can brands use trending sounds on TikTok?
• Statutory damages, explained
• Free check: see how many red posts you have

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.