Warner Music Sues Ray-Ban Owner Over 427 Songs Used in Social Media Ads

Warner Music Group has sued the parent company of Ray-Ban and Oakley, accusing the eyewear giant and several affiliates of using 427 copyrighted songs and recordings in social media advertisements without permission, potentially exposing the companies to more than $64 million in statutory damages.

Filed October 9, 2026, in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that EssilorLuxottica and its affiliated brands repeatedly used music associated with artists including Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, Taylor Swift and Rihanna in promotional videos posted to Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube without securing the necessary licenses.

The complaint names six corporate defendants, including Luxottica Group, Luxottica of America and Oakley, and accuses them of using Warner's music to promote eyewear and other products to a combined social media audience exceeding 36 million followers. Warner alleges that the companies benefited commercially from the recordings while failing to compensate the labels, publishers and songwriters whose work appeared in the advertisements.

Among the disputed recordings are Charli XCX's "Apple" and Dua Lipa's "Don't Start Now," released through labels associated with Warner. The complaint also identifies compositions controlled by Warner Chappell Music, including Taylor Swift's "You Belong with Me," Rihanna's "Where Have You Been," Drake's "0 to 100/The Catch Up" and Travis Scott's "Sicko Mode."

Warner's recording labels and music publishing companies hold different rights in the works identified in the lawsuit. Using an existing recording in an advertisement generally requires authorization covering both the recorded performance and the underlying musical composition, which can be owned or controlled by separate parties.

The lawsuit alleges that EssilorLuxottica used the songs to attract viewers, promote its brands, and generate commercial engagement without obtaining that authorization. Warner also claims the companies deprived rights holders of the opportunity to decide whether their music should be associated with particular products and advertising campaigns.

According to the complaint, the defendants continued using protected music despite warnings concerning unauthorized commercial use on social media platforms. Warner cites those alleged warnings in support of its position that the infringement was willful, a finding that could affect the amount of statutory damages available under federal copyright law.

Although platforms such as Instagram and TikTok provide music libraries for certain types of videos, those arrangements do not automatically authorize businesses to incorporate copyrighted songs into advertisements. The permissions available depend on the platform's licensing agreements and the intended use, with commercial campaigns generally requiring separate clearance from the relevant rights holders.

Warner is seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work it alleges was willfully infringed. Applied to the 427 works identified in the complaint, that maximum produces a potential award of approximately $64.05 million, although the amount remains theoretical.

The court would have to determine whether infringement occurred, whether the requirements for statutory damages are satisfied, and what amount, if any, should be awarded. Warner also seeks additional relief available under copyright law, including measures to prevent further unauthorized use of its recordings and compositions.

The lawsuit follows similar copyright disputes between major music companies and businesses accused of using popular songs in social media advertising. In August, Sony Music sued Kroger and its affiliates over at least 392 alleged unauthorized uses of recordings in promotional videos. Earlier litigation involving Chili's parent company, Brinker International, ended in confidential settlements with Universal Music Group and the Beastie Boys.

Those cases reflect growing legal scrutiny of commercial accounts that use copyrighted music in short-form promotional content. The availability of a song on a social platform does not necessarily establish that a brand has permission to use it to market products.

EssilorLuxottica's position on Warner's allegations has not been established in the available reporting. The complaint's claims remain unproven, and the court has not determined whether the disputed advertising violated copyright law.

The case will proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the defendants will have an opportunity to respond to Warner's allegations and its request for damages and other relief.