X Takes the Music Industry to Court, and the Bill Could Be Huge

X has kicked off yet another legal fight, and this one goes straight to the heart of the music industry. In early 2026, the company filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States against the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) and a group of major music publishers, accusing them of working together to force X into costly music licensing deals. If X wins, it could avoid paying what might otherwise amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.


The dispute, which is playing out in U.S. federal court, is the latest chapter in a long-running clash over how music is used on the platform and who should pay for it. Music publishers want X to sign licensing agreements similar to those already in place with apps like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, allowing users to include songs in their posts while ensuring artists and rights holders get paid. X, however, argues that music plays a relatively minor role on its platform compared to those rivals.

This tension has been simmering for years. Before Elon Musk acquired Twitter, the company was already in talks with several labels about licensing deals. Those negotiations were dropped after Musk took over, largely because he considered the proposed fees too high given X's limited reliance on music-driven trends. Instead, X leaned on the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protect platforms from liability as long as they remove infringing content when notified and block repeat offenders.

Things escalated in 2023, when seventeen music publishers sued X, claiming copyright infringement involving around 1,700 songs and seeking up to $250 million in damages. X hasn't paid and says it won't, arguing that this pressure campaign is exactly what led to the current situation.

In its latest filing, X claims the NMPA and major publishers have effectively coordinated their actions, using mass DMCA takedown requests as leverage to push X into signing blanket licensing agreements at inflated rates. According to X, this collective approach eliminates competition between publishers and amounts to coercive behavior.

Importantly, X says it's not trying to avoid paying for music altogether. Its argument is that it should be able to negotiate individual deals on fair terms, rather than being strong-armed into an industry-wide program. Whether the court agrees is another question. X has actively avoided licensing for years, which may weaken its position.

Still, the case raises a broader issue: should X pay the same way music-heavy platforms do? As X leans further into video, the answer may matter more than ever. For now, though, it looks like Elon Musk is ready for another long, expensive courtroom battle—and his lawyers probably aren't surprised.

Want to read this in Spanish? Spanish Version >>