Warner Music Sues Ray-Ban and Oakley Owner Over Alleged Unlicensed Music Use
Warner companies allege promotional social videos used at least 427 copyrighted works without permission, highlighting licensing requirements for paid and organic brand content.
Warner Music Group companies have filed a lawsuit against Luxottica Group and five related businesses, alleging they used music without permission in promotional social media videos for brands including Ray-Ban and Oakley.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on 9 October. The public court record lists Warner companies including Atlantic Music Group, Warner Records and Warner Chappell Music as bringing the case.
The businesses being sued are Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica of America, Oakley, Costa Del Mar, Eye Buy Direct and Chapter 4 Corp., which streetwear and lifestyle brand Supreme identifies as its operator. Parent company EssilorLuxottica is not itself named as a defendant.
In its announcement of the lawsuit, Warner’s law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel said the brands allegedly used at least 427 Warner-controlled copyrighted works without seeking permission or paying licensing fees.
The firm identified music associated with Miley Cyrus, Led Zeppelin, Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande, Bruno Mars, Charli xcx and Fleetwood Mac.
Warner’s lawyers also allege the businesses ignored social platforms’ warnings about music licensing. That claim has not been independently verified, and the allegations remain unproven.
TMN has sought comment from EssilorLuxottica and Warner’s legal representatives, and asked APRA AMCOS to clarify Australian licensing requirements.
Reporting from inside the Australian music business since '94.
For Australian brands and agencies, the dispute highlights a practical distinction: finding a track on a social platform does not necessarily mean a business has permission to use it to promote its products.
That applies to unpaid posts too. TikTok’s business guidance directs businesses to its Commercial Music Library for promotional content, including organic posts, duets, reactions and stitches, as well as paid ads. Businesses using other sounds must ensure they have the necessary licences.
Warner’s earlier lawsuit against PacSun also highlights music clearance when brands repost influencer content. In its December 2025 complaint against the retailer, Warner companies alleged music was used without permission in both videos made by PacSun and influencer videos reposted on its social media accounts.
In Australia, APRA AMCOS’s synchronisation guidance says pairing copyrighted music with video and sharing it will usually require permission from the copyright owners.
For commercially released tracks, that generally means clearing two sets of rights: the song with its publisher or songwriter, and the recording with its owner, often a label or artist. APRA AMCOS says it generally does not administer those synchronisation licences, and further licensing may be needed depending on how the video is shared.
In announcing the lawsuit, Warner’s lawyers argue that the alleged use denied Warner compensation and deprived it, its artists and songwriters of control over where their music appeared. That puts payment and permission at the centre of the dispute: who can use the music to sell products, and on what terms.
