# X Sues NMPA and Major Publishers Alleging… | Dynamoi News

Canonical URL: https://dynamoi.com/news/2026-01-09-x-sues-nmpa-and-major-publishers-alleging-dmca-extortion-sch.html

Source: Dynamoi static public site

Description: The Texas federal filing accuses rights holders of a coordinated boycott to force "supracompetitive" licensing fees via weaponized DMCA notices.

Dynamoi News X Sues NMPA and Major Publishers Alleging DMCA "Extortion" Scheme The Texas federal filing accuses rights holders of a coordinated boycott to force "supracompetitive" licensing fees via weaponized DMCA notices. Published January 9, 2026 Editor Trevor Loucks Editorial policy → In a scorched-earth legal pivot, X Corp. has escalated its battle with the music industry from a copyright dispute to a federal antitrust war. On Friday, January 9, 2026, the platform formerly known as Twitter filed suit against the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and major publishers including Sony , Universal , and Warner , alleging an illegal conspiracy to force inflated licensing deals. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the complaint accuses the industry’s top rights holders of operating as a cartel. X argues that rather than negotiating competitively, publishers coordinated a boycott to extract "supracompetitive" fees that exceed market norms. The "extortion" theory At the heart of the 53-page complaint (Case 3:26-cv-00047) is the allegation that the NMPA "weaponized" the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). X claims the trade group orchestrated a flood of takedown notices not to curb piracy, but to overwhelm the platform's operations and coerce a settlement. Key data points from the filing: The campaign targeted over 200,000 posts . Approximately 50,000 user accounts were suspended. X alleges many notices were "baseless" or strategically timed to inflict maximum operational damage. X’s legal team argues this constitutes a "refusal to deal" under the Sherman Act, depriving the platform of the benefits of a competitive market where publishers would normally vie for distribution. Strategic counter-fire This antitrust suit is a direct tactical response to the NMPA’s own legal offensive. In 2023, the NMPA sued X for over $250 million in damages, arguing it is the only major social platform that refuses to pay for music licenses. X has survived parts of that suit but faces ongoing claims regarding contributory infringement. The new filing formalizes X’s "maximum pain" theory, which emerged during discovery in the copyright case. X’s lawyers allege internal documents show NMPA CEO David Israelite directed the takedown campaign specifically to force X’s hand, rather than to protect specific works. By labeling this conduct as anticompetitive, X attempts to flip the script: transforming their refusal to license into a stand against price-fixing. Key insight: X is attempting to pierce the corporate veil of the trade association, arguing that when competitors (publishers) coordinate enforcement through a central body (NMPA) to set prices, it ceases to be lobbying and becomes a cartel. Piercing the legal shield To succeed, X must navigate the Noerr-Pennington doctrine , which typically immunizes parties from antitrust liability when they petition courts or the government—including filing lawsuits and sending DMCA notices. X’s strategy relies on the "sham litigation" exception. They must prove the NMPA's enforcement actions were objectively baseless and used merely as a pretext to interfere with X's business. This mirrors arguments Pandora successfully used against ASCAP and BMI a decade ago, where the court found publishers colluded to withdraw digital rights to artificially hike rates. Collective bargaining risks For the music industry, the stakes extend far beyond unpaid royalties from one platform. If X’s suit gains traction, it threatens the model of collective enforcement. The risk: If mass DMCA campaigns are deemed potential antitrust violations, rights holders may hesitate to enforce copyrights at scale. This would effectively strengthen the "safe harbor" defense for tech platforms, making it costlier and riskier for publishers to police unauthorized content. The fragmentation threat: A win for X could force publishers to negotiate strictly individually to avoid the appearance of collusion. This "divide and conquer" outcome would likely drive down aggregate licensing fees and increase administrative costs for rights holders. For now, X remains a "holdout" in the social music economy—unlicensed and litigious—while songwriters continue to wait for revenue from one of the world's most prominent conversation platforms. Related stories YouTube Unveils Voice Clone Monetization API for Labels May 11, 2026 Major Publishers Bypass MLC After Spotify Defends $230M Bundle Cut May 9, 2026 Create Music Group Finances AI Artist Roster in Multi-Million JV February 5, 2026 Wixen Sues Meta for $50M Over Unlicensed Music and AI Training January 29, 2026 Latest News May 30, 2026 Warner Music Settles $24M Copyright Suit With Crumbl May 29, 2026 UMG Board Unanimously Rejects Bill Ackman’s $64B Takeover Bid May 29, 2026 Spotify Rolls Out $10.99 Basic Tier Amid $150M Royalties Dispute May 28, 2026 Sony Weaponizes 2024 AI Opt-Out in 61,000-Track Suno Lawsuit May 27, 2026 33 States Demand Ticketmaster Divestiture After Antitrust Verdict May 26, 2026 Spotify Shares Surge 16% on UMG Deal for Paid AI Remix Tools See pricing →