X Corp.’s new lawsuit against the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and 18 major music publishers turns a long‑running licensing fight into a full‑blown antitrust confrontation. At its core, the case asks whether one of copyright law’s primary enforcement tools—the DMCA takedown regime—can become unlawful when used collectively as economic leverage rather than simply to stop infringement.

According to X, the music industry’s top publishers didn’t just enforce their rights; they allegedly coordinated a “weaponized” campaign of mass takedowns and user suspensions to force the platform into accepting supra‑competitive, industry‑wide licensing terms. If the claims gain traction in court, the suit could reset the balance of power between tech platforms and rights holders and redraw the boundary between legitimate copyright enforcement and illegal restraints of trade.

—

From licensing dispute to antitrust battle

The conflict began as a familiar standoff: a fast‑moving digital platform without comprehensive music licenses and rights holders seeking to be paid for the use of their catalogs. X (then Twitter) has long hosted short user‑generated clips that contain snippets of recorded music—sports highlights, memes, fan edits, and viral trends featuring popular songs. For years, the platform operated without the kind of broad music licensing agreements that govern services like YouTube or TikTok.

According to X’s new complaint, that status quo changed in October 2021, when the NMPA allegedly told Twitter it would launch a “massive program” of DMCA takedown notices—billed as larger than any previous enforcement effort in DMCA history—unless the company agreed to an umbrella licensing deal on the NMPA’s preferred terms. X claims that when it resisted those demands and sought to negotiate directly with individual publishers at competitive rates, the NMPA and its members responded with the very campaign they had threatened.

Beginning in December 2021, the lawsuit alleges, X was hit with weekly DMCA takedown batches targeting thousands of posts at a time. Within the first year, more than 200,000 posts were flagged, and the resulting enforcement led to over 50,000 user account suspensions, including accounts that X describes as valuable contributors to its community and ad ecosystem. The company says those suspensions and removals harmed user trust and engagement, and by extension, advertising revenue.

What makes this more than a copyright story is X’s contention that the campaign was not just vigorous enforcement by individual rightsholders, but a coordinated strategy by publishers representing more than 90% of U.S. copyrighted music—allegedly aimed at eliminating competitive, one‑to‑one licensing negotiations in favor of imposing collective terms at monopoly prices.

—

X’s antitrust theory: DMCA as a collusive bargaining weapon

The complaint frames the conduct as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, accusing the NMPA and publishers of civil conspiracy, unfair competition, and attempted monopolization. In X’s telling, the defendants used the DMCA not primarily to curb infringement, but as a collective bargaining weapon to coerce one platform into accepting industry‑wide conditions it did not agree to.

Several features of the alleged scheme are central to that theory:

– Market power and coordination
X asserts that the NMPA and its member publishers collectively control licensing rights for over 90% of U.S. musical works, giving them effective gatekeeping power over commercial music use online. The complaint alleges that, instead of competing among themselves to offer better terms, these publishers coordinated through their trade association to present X with a single, unified stance, backed by the threat and subsequent deployment of mass takedowns.

– Threat of unprecedented enforcement
The October 2021 warning of a DMCA program “larger than any previous effort in DMCA history” is highlighted as evidence that enforcement scale was tied to negotiation leverage, not merely to the volume of infringing content. X argues that publishers made clear they could calibrate enforcement intensity depending on whether the platform accepted their licensing framework.

– Shift from licensing talks to punitive takedowns
Once licensing discussions failed, X claims, the NMPA and participating publishers pivoted to an aggressive takedown strategy designed to make the platform’s experience worse for users—maximizing account suspensions and removals to put pressure on X’s business. The alleged result: tens of thousands of accounts suspended and a reputational hit to X as a reliable venue for speech and social interaction.

– Refusal of individual competitive deals
X’s antitrust narrative emphasizes that the company sought to negotiate directly with individual publishers, offering what it characterizes as competitive market rates. According to the complaint, the NMPA and participating publishers either refused or coordinated their responses to block such bilateral negotiations, insisting instead on a collective licensing structure.

These allegations, if proven, could raise novel questions: at what point does coordinated use of a legal enforcement mechanism become an unlawful restraint of trade? Can a trade association’s collective assertion of rights cross the line into monopolistic conduct if coupled with threats to damage a platform’s user base unless it accepts supra‑competitive prices?

—

“De minimis” uses and alleged hypocrisy

A significant part of X’s rhetorical strategy is to portray the takedown campaign as not just heavy‑handed but overbroad and inconsistent, targeting users in ways that even the industry’s own behavior does not support.

The complaint cites examples of “de minimis” uses of music that allegedly triggered takedowns, including:

– A high school sports award ceremony video in which copyrighted music played faintly in the background for a few seconds.
– Fan‑made remix or tribute posts, including content that X says had been reposted or celebrated by executives at the very publishers demanding takedown of identical material from ordinary users.

By spotlighting these cases, X seeks to depict the campaign as divorced from any genuine concern with market harm or substantial infringement. Instead, the company argues, the publishers targeted marginal, non‑commercial uses as part of a broader strategy to inflate apparent infringement statistics and justify massive enforcement waves.

X goes further by alleging outright hypocrisy: the complaint points to NMPA and publisher executives who allegedly reposted popular copyrighted tracks and fan edits on X while simultaneously demanding removal and account penalties when regular users shared comparable content. That contrast, X suggests, undermines the claim that such sharing is inherently unacceptable or harmful.

While such examples may resonate with users and policymakers, their legal impact will depend on the court’s view of how DMCA rights may be exercised and whether inconsistency or selectivity in enforcement can support an antitrust claim.

—

The role of major publishers: late but pivotal participants

According to X, the initial pressure campaign stemmed principally from the NMPA and a core group of member publishers, with the three largest—Sony Music, Universal Music, and Warner Chappell—joining more fully only after preferred licensing deals failed to materialize. Once those majors aligned with the campaign, the scale and leverage of the effort increased substantially, X argues, because their catalogs are indispensable to a platform that hosts user‑generated content featuring popular songs.

This timeline matters to X’s antitrust framing. The company seeks to show:

– A structured escalation, where the NMPA first tested the threat of mass DMCA actions and then, after failed negotiations, expanded the coalition to include nearly all key rights holders.
– A resulting industry‑wide front that left X with no practical alternative sources for mainstream music content, effectively eliminating any competitive pressure on pricing terms.

The complaint thus tries to distinguish normal licensing “hold‑out” behavior by a single rightsholder from a coordinated, trade‑association‑led effort to foreclose competitive dealmaking across an entire sector.

—

Legal backdrop: a copyright suit turned on its head

The new antitrust action comes against the backdrop of a prior copyright lawsuit that the publishers filed against X in 2023. In that earlier case, a group of 17 publishers sought over $250 million in damages, alleging that X had allowed rampant unlicensed use of their works. In 2024, X succeeded in getting most of those claims dismissed, significantly weakening the publishers’ position and emboldening the platform.

X now frames its countersuit as a direct response to that litigation environment and to what it portrays as a coordinated attempt to use both DMCA procedures and traditional infringement claims as pressure tactics. By moving from defense to offense and invoking antitrust law, X is attempting to flip the narrative: instead of being the infringing platform that refuses to pay for music, it casts itself as a victim of collusive conduct by dominant rights holders exploiting legal tools for anticompetitive ends.

The fact that the new case has been filed in the Northern District of Texas, a forum where X may perceive a more skeptical stance toward expansive copyright or regulatory claims, suggests a strategic choice of venue as well.

—

DMCA vs. antitrust: a collision of legal regimes

At the center of this dispute lies a complex interaction between copyright enforcement and competition policy. The DMCA grants rights holders robust tools to protect their works online, including streamlined mechanisms for requesting removal of infringing content. Platforms that comply with those requests and maintain appropriate policies can secure “safe harbor” protection from direct liability.

Historically, courts have been reluctant to second‑guess a rights holder’s decision to send takedown notices, so long as there is a plausible basis for claiming infringement and the notices comply with statutory requirements. The distinctive twist here is that X is not challenging individual notices as abusive under copyright law alone—it is claiming that the collective structure and purpose of the takedown campaign transform an otherwise lawful enforcement mechanism into a vehicle for illegal collusion.

Key questions the court may need to confront include:

– Can an otherwise lawful exercise of copyright (sending takedown notices) constitute part of an antitrust violation when coordinated among competitors with substantial market power?
– How should courts distinguish between robust collective enforcement designed to protect legitimate rights and coordinated enforcement designed to eliminate competitive bargaining and impose uniform prices?
– To what extent should trade associations like the NMPA be permitted to organize industry‑wide enforcement efforts without running afoul of the Sherman Act?

The answers could reverberate well beyond X. Many digital services rely on DMCA processes to manage copyright risk, and many industries use trade associations as vehicles for collective communication and lobbying. A ruling that certain coordinated takedown strategies cross into antitrust territory could force both platforms and rights holders to reassess long‑standing practices.

—

Stakes for the broader digital music and platform ecosystem

The implications of this case extend into several key dimensions of the digital economy:

– Music licensing costs and leverage
If X’s antitrust claims gain traction, large rights holder coalitions may face new constraints in how they coordinate licensing negotiations with platforms. That could weaken the ability of publishers to insist on uniform terms and open the door to more individualized, competitive deals—potentially driving down licensing costs for some services.

– Platform liability and enforcement incentives
Platforms have historically had strong incentives to respond aggressively to DMCA notices, including by suspending users who accumulate strikes. If courts signal that mass, coordinated takedown campaigns can carry antitrust risk when tied to pricing demands, the calculus behind platforms’ cooperation and policy design could change.

– User experience and speech considerations
X emphasizes the impact on users: over 50,000 accounts suspended and countless posts removed, including content it characterizes as harmless or transformative. While the case is framed formally as an economic dispute, it underscores how copyright enforcement strategies can shape the contours of online speech, community norms, and creative expression.

– Trade association boundaries
The NMPA’s central role in the alleged conduct puts trade associations under the microscope. Courts may need to delineate more clearly where collective rights advocacy and enforcement end and unlawful cartel‑like behavior begins—guidance that would affect not only music but sectors ranging from publishing to film, software, and beyond.

—

A turning point in platform–publisher relations?

For years, the trajectory of platform–publisher relations in music has moved toward more comprehensive licensing: social platforms that began as relatively unregulated spaces for user‑generated content have increasingly entered formal licensing ecosystems, integrating music catalogs into their products and revenue models. X’s lawsuit signals a possible countertrend—platform pushback not only on price but on the structure of the negotiations themselves.

By accusing the industry’s most powerful publishers and their trade association of “weaponizing” the DMCA and engaging in “collusion” to impose monopoly terms, X is asking the court to reframe what has often been treated as a straightforward matter of enforcing exclusive rights into a question of market power and competitive harm. Whether that reframing succeeds will depend on how judges evaluate the alleged coordination, the publishers’ justifications, and the broader policy tensions between fostering creativity and preventing abusive concentration of power.

Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to become a reference point in debates over how far rights holders may go in leveraging legal tools like the DMCA to shape the digital marketplace—and how far platforms may go in resisting, not just on copyright grounds, but under the banner of antitrust.

—