Eminem Publisher Scores Key Court Win, Meta Case Continues

Eminem’s publisher kept a crucial copyright claim alive against Meta after a federal judge dismissed three other allegations in the multimillion-dollar dispute.

Eminem and Meta remain on a collision course.

This week a federal judge allowed a key copyright infringement claim to move forward. U.S. District Judge Brandy R. McMillion threw out three other claims in a lawsuit that could have exposed the social media giant to more than $100 million in damages.

In a June 16 ruling, the judge partially granted Meta’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Eight Mile Style, the music publishing company that controls a substantial portion of Eminem’s catalog.

While the judge dismissed claims of inducement, contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, she allowed the publisher’s direct copyright infringement claim to proceed.

The case centers on allegations that Meta improperly reproduced and stored 243 copyrighted musical compositions in the music libraries of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp without securing the necessary licenses.

Eight Mile Style and co-plaintiff Martin Affiliated LLC filed the lawsuit in May 2025, accusing Meta of willfully infringing on hundreds of songs associated with Eminem. The publisher sought injunctive relief and statutory damages that it estimated could exceed $109 million if awarded at the maximum level permitted under copyright law.

Meta argued the lawsuit should be dismissed entirely, contending that Eight Mile failed to provide sufficient details about the alleged infringements. The company also maintained that only two songs were specifically identified and that it lacked the information necessary to properly defend itself.

Judge McMillion disagreed.

“The Court is not persuaded,” she wrote, concluding that Eight Mile sufficiently alleged Meta reproduced and stored unauthorized copies of the compositions within its platform libraries. According to the ruling, merely storing copyrighted works without permission can constitute unauthorized reproduction under the Copyright Act.

The decision keeps alive the central question of whether Meta can be held liable for hosting unlicensed music within the content tools it provides to users.

However, the court rejected Eight Mile’s secondary liability theories.

The inducement claim was dismissed after the judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case involving Cox Communications and Sony Music Entertainment, finding there is no independent cause of action for inducement separate from other forms of secondary liability.

The contributory infringement claim also failed because Eight Mile did not identify specific acts of infringement by Meta users. Although the publisher pointed to features such as Reels Remix, Original Audio and Instagram’s music-sharing tools, the court found those features could be used legally as well as illegally.

Similarly, the vicarious infringement claim was dismissed because Eight Mile failed to plausibly show Meta received a direct financial benefit from storing the compositions in its music libraries.

The ruling marks a significant, though partial, victory for both sides.

Meta successfully eliminated three claims, but Eight Mile preserved its most direct allegation that the company unlawfully copied copyrighted songs.

The case now moves into its next phase, with Judge McMillion ordering Meta to formally answer the surviving infringement claim by July 7.

Related