You’ve probably seen the videos. A perfectly frosted cookie breaks open in slow motion while a chart-topping Dua Lipa or Taylor Swift track plays in the background. It’s the kind of content that built Crumbl into a billion-dollar empire. But lately, those viral vibes have hit a massive legal wall.
Warner Music Group (WMG) isn't playing around. In April 2025, they dropped a massive lawsuit in a Utah federal court that basically accuses the cookie giant of "massive scale" copyright infringement. We aren't talking about a one-off mistake. WMG is claiming Crumbl used at least 159 of its recordings and compositions across hundreds of social media posts without paying a dime in licensing fees.
💡 You might also like: James Huntsman Net Worth: Why the Film Mogul’s Fortune is More Than Just a Famous Name
The price tag for this oversight? A staggering $24 million.
The Crumbl Copyright Infringement WMG Lawsuit Explained (Simply)
Honestly, this whole situation is a wake-up call for anyone who thinks "trending audio" is free real estate for businesses. The core of the crumbl copyright infringement wmg lawsuit rests on a very specific legal distinction: the difference between a person posting a video and a brand posting a video.
When you or I post a TikTok using a Beyoncé song, we’re usually covered by the platform's licensing agreements with labels. But as soon as a company like Crumbl uses that same song to sell a "Blueberry Cheesecake" cookie, it becomes a commercial. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram have "Commercial Music Libraries" for a reason. They contain songs that are pre-cleared for business use.
Crumbl didn't stick to that library.
According to the legal filing, the bakery chain used some of the biggest hits in the world—tracks by Lizzo, Bruno Mars, Coldplay, and BTS—to soundtrack their promotional clips. WMG pointed out specific examples that felt a bit too "on the nose," like using Lil Mosey’s "Blueberry Faygo" for a blueberry cookie or Coldplay’s "Yellow" for a yellow sugar cookie.
They knew, right?
One of the most damning parts of the lawsuit involves what Crumbl allegedly knew. WMG claims they sent a cease-and-desist letter way back in August 2023. Usually, that’s when a company’s legal team scrubs the feed.
Instead, Crumbl supposedly kept the videos up. They even posted a TikTok in January 2024 with a caption that basically admitted the problem: "We were gonna make a funny video to promote Mystery Cookie, but legal said we can't use any trending audios."
That’s a tough look in court. It turns "we didn't know" into "we knew and did it anyway." In legal terms, that's called "willful infringement," and it’s why WMG is asking for the maximum penalty of $150,000 per song.
Why This Case Is Shaking Up Social Media Marketing
This isn't just about cookies. It's about a culture of "post now, ask for forgiveness later" that has dominated the creator economy for years. For a long time, record labels were slow to sue brands for social media posts. They saw it as free promotion.
Not anymore.
🔗 Read more: Why Did Cracker Barrel Change Their Sign? What Really Happened
The music industry has realized that social media is where the money is. If a brand uses a song in a TV commercial, they pay millions. The labels are now asking: why should a TikTok that reaches 10 million people be any different?
The Influencer Loophole is Closing
Crumbl didn’t just post these videos themselves. They worked with a massive network of influencers. The lawsuit alleges that Crumbl is also responsible for the music used in influencer content that the brand then reshared or incentivized.
This is huge.
For years, brands thought they could bypass music licensing by having an influencer "organically" use a song. WMG is calling foul on that. If the brand pays the influencer or gives them free product to make the video, the brand is on the hook for the copyright.
The $2 Billion Backdrop
The timing here is also super interesting. Right around the time this lawsuit hit, reports surfaced that Crumbl’s owners were exploring a potential sale of the company that could value it at $2 billion.
A $24 million lawsuit is a drop in the bucket compared to $2 billion, but it creates a "cloud" over the brand's intellectual property. Investors hate legal drama. It makes the company look risky and suggests that their growth might have been subsidized by "stolen" creative assets.
What Most People Get Wrong About Music Copyright
There’s a persistent myth that "if the song is on the app, I can use it."
Wrong.
The "Commercial Library" on TikTok is actually pretty limited. It doesn't have the newest Taylor Swift or Drake songs because those artists (and their labels) want a premium for commercial use. If you see a major brand using a Top 40 hit, they likely spent months negotiating a sync license.
Crumbl appears to have skipped the line.
Actionable Insights for Brands and Creators
If you're running a business—even a small one—the crumbl copyright infringement wmg lawsuit should be your sign to audit your feed immediately. Here is the reality of the 2026 legal landscape:
🔗 Read more: How Much Savings Does Average American Have: What Most People Get Wrong
- Switch to a Business Account: Most platforms will automatically restrict you to the commercial-safe library. If you're using a personal account for a business, you're asking for a lawsuit.
- The "Mute" Rule: If you have old videos using trending music, it might be time to archive them or mute the audio. Labels are using AI tools to scan years of historical posts for violations.
- Update Influencer Contracts: Make sure your agreements explicitly state that influencers must use royalty-free music or music from the platform's commercial library.
- Understand "Willful" vs. "Innocent": If you get a cease-and-desist, don't joke about it on TikTok. Take it seriously. The difference in fines is massive.
The era of the "wild west" on social media is over. Labels like WMG, Sony, and Universal are now treating TikTok and Instagram exactly like they treat television and film. If you want the vibe of a hit song, you're going to have to pay the price of admission.
As of late 2025 and heading into 2026, the case is moving through the discovery phase in the District of Utah. Scheduling orders are in place, and both sides are digging into the data of just how many views—and how much cookie revenue—those songs actually generated. Whether they settle or go to trial, the message is clear: the music isn't free just because it's viral.