I. The lawsuit
Warner Music Group’s $24 million lawsuit against Crumbl Cookies, filed in April 2025, proves that viral marketing success can trigger ruinous legal consequences. Warner alleges that the Utah-based cookie chain used at least 159 copyrighted sound recordings by artists including Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, BTS, and Dua Lipa without authorization across 286 social media posts. The case goes beyond simple copyright infringement—it exposes how contractual ambiguity in influencer and brand marketing relationships creates liability that can eclipse years of revenue.
Crumbl built its nationwide expansion on viral social media content, amassing millions of followers through videos that pair trending music with rotating cookie flavors. Yet the lawsuit reveals a fundamental gap between creative ambition and legal preparation. Warner’s complaint notes that Crumbl continued posting infringing content months after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, and even acknowledged in one video that “legal said” they “can’t use any trending audios.” This admission reveals a broader problem: brands and creators often understand the risk but proceed anyway, gambling that viral reach will outweigh legal consequences.
The Crumbl dispute shows how brand-influencer contracts routinely fail to clarify licensing duties, leaving both parties exposed to catastrophic liability. While Crumbl created some content internally and some through influencer partnerships, the lawsuit demonstrates that unclear contractual boundaries can make every party liable regardless of who pressed “publish.” When agreements lack specific provisions addressing third-party content, music licensing, and indemnification responsibilities, a single TikTok post can trigger millions in damages.
II. The Legal Framework of Copyright Use in Commercial Content
Copyright law grants exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display creative works, making unauthorized commercial use presumptively infringing regardless of platform or intent. Social media’s culture of remixing and resharing conflicts fundamentally with these exclusive rights, creating an enforcement gap that many brands exploit until litigation forces compliance.
The statutory damages available under copyright law create particularly severe exposure for commercial entities. Warner seeks up to $150,000 per work infringed—the maximum statutory penalty—rather than proving actual damages. For brands using dozens or hundreds of copyrighted works across social campaigns, this framework can generate liability that exceeds annual revenue. Crumbl’s alleged 159 infringements could yield damages approaching $24 million, demonstrating how quickly exposure accumulates.
Commercial use heightens both liability risk and damage calculations. Courts scrutinize whether defendants profited from infringement and whether their use harmed the market for original works. Crumbl’s social media marketing directly drove cookie sales, establishing clear commercial benefit from unauthorized music use. The company’s sophisticated marketing operation—including partnerships with influencers—suggests willful infringement rather than innocent mistake, potentially supporting enhanced damages.
Platform licensing policies create additional complexity for commercial users. TikTok and Instagram prohibit unauthorized copyrighted music use, yet their content identification systems often fail to catch violations immediately. Brands may post infringing content for weeks or months before platforms remove it, generating substantial reach and revenue while accumulating legal exposure. Warner’s complaint notes that Crumbl misrepresented copyrighted music as “original audio,” potentially violating platform terms alongside federal copyright law.
III. The Crumbl Case: Unlicensed Music and Unclear Roles
Warner’s complaint shows systematic copyright infringement spanning multiple years and platforms, with Crumbl allegedly using chart-topping songs to enhance promotional videos for specific cookie flavors. The strategic pairing—BTS’s “Butter” for Kentucky butter cake, Lil Mosey’s “Blueberry Faygo” for blueberry cheesecake—demonstrates sophisticated marketing execution combined with wholesale disregard for licensing requirements.
The ambiguity surrounding content creation roles complicates liability analysis significantly. Warner alleges that Crumbl both created infringing content directly and partnered with influencers who used unauthorized music in promotional videos. This dual approach creates multiple theories of liability: direct infringement for company-created content, contributory infringement for enabling influencer violations, and vicarious liability for benefiting financially from widespread unauthorized use.
Crumbl’s response to Warner’s August 2023 cease-and-desist letter demonstrates how contractual ambiguity can perpetuate legal violations. Rather than immediately removing infringing content or clarifying licensing responsibilities with influencer partners, Crumbl continued posting new violations for months. The company’s January 2024 video acknowledging that “legal said” they couldn’t use trending audios suggests internal awareness of legal risk without corresponding operational changes.
The involvement of influencer partners creates additional layers of contractual complexity. If Crumbl’s agreements with creators lacked specific music licensing provisions, both parties may face liability for the same infringing content. Influencers who posted unauthorized content could face individual copyright claims, while Crumbl bears responsibility for contributory infringement if it encouraged or enabled violations through inadequate contractual guidance.
IV. Contractual Breakdown in the Influencer Economy
Standard influencer agreements routinely fail to address music licensing, creating systematic exposure across the creator economy. Most contracts focus on deliverables, payment terms, and basic usage rights while ignoring third-party intellectual property clearance. This oversight reflects broader industry assumptions that platforms handle licensing automatically or that viral content justifies legal risk.
The absence of comprehensive indemnification provisions compounds exposure for both brands and creators. When agreements lack specific language allocating responsibility for copyright violations, both parties may face liability without recourse against each other. Influencers posting unauthorized music for brand campaigns may discover their contracts provide no protection against individual copyright claims, while brands face contributory liability without clear indemnification rights.
“Work for hire” provisions in influencer contracts create additional confusion regarding licensing obligations. While these clauses may transfer content ownership to brands, they do not automatically transfer responsibility for third-party clearances. An influencer creating content as “work for hire” may satisfy contractual obligations while leaving the brand liable for embedded copyright violations. Without explicit language requiring creators to secure all necessary rights, brands inherit comprehensive liability for content they commissioned but may not have reviewed for legal compliance.
Platform licensing assumptions represent another source of contractual breakdown. Many creators and brands assume that TikTok’s music library or Instagram’s audio features provide automatic commercial licensing, overlooking terms that restrict business use. These platforms typically license music for individual user-generated content, not commercial advertising campaigns. Brands relying on platform licensing for influencer marketing campaigns may discover their commercial use exceeds platform license scope, creating direct liability for copyright infringement.
The knowledge and sophistication gap between brands and individual creators creates systematic contract failures. While companies like Crumbl maintain legal departments and intellectual property expertise—as Warner notes in its complaint—individual influencers typically lack resources for legal consultation or copyright clearance. This disparity enables brands to shift liability risk onto creators who may not understand the legal implications of their contractual commitments.
V. Toward Clarity: Model Terms and Best Practices
Effective influencer agreements must explicitly allocate music licensing responsibilities rather than allowing ambiguity to create shared liability. Contracts should specify whether brands or creators bear responsibility for securing rights to third-party music, with corresponding indemnification provisions protecting the non-responsible party. When brands maintain creative control over music selection, they should assume licensing responsibility; when creators choose music independently, they should bear corresponding liability with appropriate insurance requirements.
Mandatory music licensing provisions should require creators to use only pre-approved music libraries or to secure written confirmation of commercial licensing rights before content creation. Brands should provide creators with specific platforms and tracks approved for commercial use, rather than general guidance to avoid copyrighted content. These provisions should include representation and warranty clauses requiring creators to confirm compliance with all licensing requirements.
Comprehensive indemnification language should align with actual control over licensing decisions. When brands direct music selection or approve content containing specific tracks, indemnification should flow to creators who implement brand decisions. Conversely, when creators maintain independence over music choices, they should indemnify brands against resulting copyright violations. Mutual indemnification may be appropriate when both parties participate in music selection decisions.
Educational requirements represent another essential component of effective agreements. Brands should provide creators with specific training regarding copyright compliance, platform licensing limitations, and alternatives to popular copyrighted music. This training should include examples of compliant content and clear guidance regarding music that requires separate licensing for commercial use. Documentation of creator training can support brands’ good faith compliance efforts in potential litigation.
Regular compliance monitoring should be required when agreements permit ongoing content creation. Brands benefiting from influencer content should implement systematic review processes to identify potential copyright violations before they accumulate substantial exposure. Automated content scanning tools can flag potential copyright issues, while legal review processes can address complex clearance questions before content publication.
Platform-level solutions could address systematic industry problems that individual contracts cannot resolve. Social media platforms should implement enhanced copyright detection specifically for commercial accounts, with mandatory licensing confirmation before posting. Platform tools could integrate with music licensing services to enable direct license purchases for commercial content. Clear labeling systems could distinguish between personal use and commercial licensing for music tracks.
Policy considerations suggest that sophisticated commercial entities should bear greater responsibility for copyright compliance than individual creators. Companies like Crumbl possess legal resources and industry expertise that enable proper licensing compliance, while individual influencers typically lack access to copyright counsel or licensing services. Regulatory approaches could require brands to maintain insurance coverage for copyright violations arising from influencer partnerships, or to provide creators with access to legal compliance resources.
The Crumbl case proves that contractual ambiguity in influencer marketing creates risks that can exceed the commercial value of viral content. As copyright holders increasingly pursue statutory damages against commercial infringers, brands and creators must prioritize legal clarity over creative ambition. The entertainment industry’s transition toward direct licensing and creator-friendly terms provides models for sustainable influencer marketing that balances viral potential with legal compliance.
Clear contractual language allocating licensing responsibilities, combined with practical tools for compliance verification, can prevent the systematic copyright violations that destroyed Crumbl’s social media marketing advantages. The alternative—gambling that viral reach will outweigh legal consequences—has proven catastrophically expensive for companies across the creator economy.