Eight Mile Style v. Meta — Direct Copyright Claim Over Eminem Music Libraries Survives; Secondary Theories Dismissed

Background

Eight Mile Style, LLC and Martin Affiliated, LLC own the copyrights to 243 musical compositions — including many of the most famous songs recorded by Eminem (Marshall Mathers) — such as “Lose Yourself.” The companies sued Meta Platforms (along with its subsidiaries Instagram and WhatsApp) for willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501(a), alleging that Meta stored these 243 compositions without authorization in searchable, downloadable music libraries available across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — libraries Meta curates algorithmically, with “For You” and “Trending” categories, and from which users can download songs to use in Stories, Reels, direct message stickers, and Reels Remix features. Eight Mile sought up to $150,000 per song per platform — a potential $109 million in statutory damages.

Eight Mile’s complaint included four counts: (I) direct copyright infringement by Meta, (II) inducement of infringement, (III) contributory infringement, and (IV) vicarious infringement. Meta moved to dismiss all four counts under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Eight Mile failed to plead facts sufficient to state any viable claim. The motion raised threshold questions about what Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026) — the Supreme Court’s landmark 2026 ruling on secondary copyright liability — means for how secondary infringement claims must be pled.

The Court’s Holding

Count I (Direct Infringement) — Survives. Judge McMillion denied the motion to dismiss the direct infringement claim, finding that Eight Mile plausibly alleged Meta reproduced and stored the compositions in its music libraries without authorization. Storing copyrighted works in a server without a license constitutes unauthorized reproduction under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), and Eight Mile did not need to allege specific individual acts by specific users — Meta’s own act of placing the works in its music libraries is the alleged infringing act. The court also declined to apply a heightened pleading standard to copyright cases, rejecting Meta’s argument that Eight Mile must plead the “who, what, when, where, how” of each infringement at the complaint stage.

Count II (Inducement) — Dismissed. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s recent Cox decision, the court held that inducement of infringement is not a standalone cause of action under the Copyright Act. Rather, inducement is one of two means of establishing the intent element for contributory liability (along with knowledge of a specifically infringing use). There are only two recognized theories of secondary copyright infringement: contributory and vicarious.

Count III (Contributory Infringement) — Dismissed. To state a claim for contributory infringement, a plaintiff must allege either that the defendant actively encouraged (induced) infringement through specific acts, or that it provided a service tailored primarily to infringement. Eight Mile failed on both prongs: the complaint contained no specific allegations about what particular users did with the Eight Mile Compositions, and it failed to allege that Meta’s tools were incapable of substantial non-infringing uses. The court also applied Cox to reject the theory that mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe — without affirmative encouragement — is sufficient for contributory liability.

Count IV (Vicarious Infringement) — Dismissed. For vicarious liability, a plaintiff must allege both (1) the defendant’s right and ability to supervise infringing conduct, and (2) a direct financial benefit from that infringement. Eight Mile met the first element — Meta can control what music appears in its libraries. But the court dismissed the claim because Eight Mile’s financial benefit allegations were conclusory: claiming that advertising, sponsored posts, and subscription fees give Meta a financial benefit does not specifically connect the Eight Mile Compositions to that benefit. Without pleading a causal connection between the compositions and Meta’s revenue, the vicarious claim could not proceed.

Key Takeaways

• Post-Cox secondary liability framework matters at pleading: This is one of the first district court rulings to apply the Supreme Court’s 2026 Cox decision to a copyright complaint. Cox’s confirmation that mere knowledge is insufficient for contributory liability is now filtering down to motions to dismiss — rights holders need to plead specific inducement acts or a service designed for infringement.
• Direct infringement by platforms remains a live theory: Even as secondary theories were dismissed, Eight Mile’s core claim — that Meta itself reproduced and stored the compositions without a license — survived. Platforms that build music libraries (as opposed to merely hosting user uploads) face direct infringement exposure under this theory.
• Vicarious liability requires a specific financial connection: Alleging that a platform generally benefits from advertising while infringed works are available is not enough. Rights holders must plead facts showing the infringing material specifically drew users or generated revenue — a tougher standard than many assumed pre-Cox.
• $109M in statutory damages remains on the table: With direct infringement surviving, the case proceeds to discovery and, ultimately, a potential damages award of up to $150,000 per work per platform — an enormous exposure for Meta if Eight Mile can prove willfulness.

Why It Matters

This ruling sits at the crossroads of two of the most consequential developments in recent copyright law: the Supreme Court’s Cox decision redefining secondary liability, and the ongoing battle between major music rights holders and social media platforms over music libraries. Every major social platform — Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Spotify — offers some version of a curated music library for user content creation. The question of whether maintaining such a library, independently of user uploads, constitutes direct copyright infringement by the platform itself has enormous industry implications.

For music publishers and songwriters, this ruling is a partial win: the direct infringement theory is a powerful tool that bypasses the complex intent-pleading requirements of secondary liability. For tech companies, it is a warning that building and operating a searchable, downloadable music library creates direct infringement exposure that cannot be dismissed at the pleading stage simply by pointing to the platform’s non-infringing uses. The next stage — discovery and the merits — will determine whether Meta had licenses or defenses that defeat the claim. Meta has until July 7, 2026 to answer Count I.