Eminem Publisher’s Copyright Lawsuit Against Meta Moves Forward

Copyright lawsuit against Meta over Eminem songs to proceed on direct infringement claim

June 17, 2026 By Murray Stassen

A federal judge has narrowed the copyright lawsuit that Eight Mile Style filed against Meta Platforms over the use of Eminem ‘s music on Facebook , Instagram and WhatsApp.

Eight Mile Style is the co-publisher of hundreds of Eminem songs. In an Opinion and Order issued on Tuesday (June 16), Judge Brandy R. McMillion of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Meta’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The order, obtained by MBW , can be read in full here.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages, which Eight Mile framed as “maximum statutory damages for willful copyright infringement for each of Eight Mile Style’s works ($150,000 per work, times 243 works, times 3 platforms),” putting the total potential damages at around $109 million .

The ruling leaves just one of the publisher’s four claims standing.

As reported by MBW at the time, Eight Mile Style , together with co-plaintiff Martin Affiliated, LLC , sued Meta in May 2025 , alleging willful infringement of 243 compositions, many of them recorded by Eminem, across the three platforms’ music libraries.

The complaint pleaded four counts: direct infringement, inducement, contributory infringement and vicarious infringement.

Meta had approached the licensing agency Audiam in 2020 and later held direct talks with Eight Mile, but the parties never reached a license, according to the order.

Meta moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the publisher had failed to state a claim.

The case, Judge McMillion wrote, is one “to determine whether a social media company is liable for infringement when it provided access to unlicensed musical works for use in content disseminated on its platform.”

The court denied Meta ‘s motion as to the direct infringement claim, which will now proceed.

Meta had argued that the complaint identified specific infringement for only two of the 243 compositions, and that without “the who, what, when, where, how,” it could not mount a defense.

“The Court is not persuaded,” Judge McMillion wrote.

She found it enough that the complaint alleged Meta infringed by “reproducing and storing copies of the Eight Mile Compositions in the music libraries of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.”

Storing the compositions without permission, Judge McMillion added, would create an unauthorized reproduction under the Copyright Act .

The court also rejected Meta’s argument that a heightened pleading standard applies to copyright claims, citing Sixth Circuit authority.

Judge McMillion dismissed the remaining three counts.

On inducement, the court agreed with Meta that “there is no separate stand-alone cause of action.”

It read the US Supreme Court ‘s 2026 decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment to recognize only two theories of secondary liability: contributory and vicarious.

On contributory infringement, Judge McMillion found the complaint “void of any of the direct acts of any platform user.”

Eight Mile had alleged that Meta tools such as Reels Remix, Original Audio and Instagram’s Direct Message Music Sticker let users infringe, but the judge found it pleaded no specific facts about any user.

“[T]he Court is unwilling to equate an encouragement to use the tools with an encouragement to infringe, especially when the tools can be used in a non-infringing way,” Judge McMillion wrote.

Citing the Supreme Court ‘s 1984 Sony Betamax decision, the judge noted that offering a service with both infringing and non-infringing uses does not by itself constitute infringement.

The court also quoted the Supreme Court ‘s Cox opinion on the point that “mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe.”

On vicarious liability, Judge McMillion found that Eight Mile had adequately alleged Meta’s “right and ability to supervise” the infringement.

But she held the allegation of “a direct financial benefit” was conclusory, finding it “not more plausible (as opposed to simply possible) that Meta had any direct financial benefit from storing the Eight Mile Compositions within its library.”

Eight Mile had argued that the availability of its music was a “draw” for users that fed Meta’s revenue from “advertising, sponsored posts, and subscription fees.”

The order repeatedly cites Cox , the Supreme Court ‘s unanimous March 2026 ruling that shielded internet provider Cox Communications from liability for piracy by its subscribers, as MBW reported .

In its response to Meta’s motion, Eight Mile attached the complaint and briefing from a separate copyright suit that Epidemic Sound has brought against Meta over the same three platforms, court records show.

Epidemic Sound filed that second suit in December 2025 , alleging infringement of 1,000 additional works across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Eight Mile ‘s case against Meta followed its loss in a long-running copyright suit against Spotify .

Judge McMillion ordered Meta to file an answer to the surviving direct infringement claim on or before July 7, 2026 . Music Business Worldwide

_Originally reported by [Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/copyright-lawsuit-against-meta-over-eminem-songs-to-proceed-on-direct-infringement-claim/)._