IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Epidemic Sound copyright suit against Meta dismissed for failure to state claim, (Jul 14, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

A court ruled that the company failed to sufficiently state a factual basis for claims of infringement but granted leave to amend to address the issue.

A copyright infringement case brought by Epidemic Sound AB against Meta Platforms, Inc. was dismissed for failure to state a claim, with a federal judge ruling Epidemic failed to state sufficient facts about the work allegedly infringed through Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms. Epidemic was granted leave to amend its complaint to address the issue (Epidemic Sound, AB v.Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-10355-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2026)).

Background. Epidemic, which owns a catalog of more than 50,000 musical works, sued Meta in 2025, alleging the company offers its music without authorization to Instagram and Facebook users. A “Music Library” feature that lets users download, stream, and add to online posts selected audio material included more than 500 Epidemic tracks without authorization, the label had alleged.

Additionally, Epidemic alleged, a feature letting users add what Meta calls “Original Audio” to Reels—a form of short video post—was also involved in infringement. Users can add their own “Original Audio” material to Reels or copy audio from another Reel post, and “Epidemic’s music, including several of the Works, have been ripped and reused from Reels by Meta and its users multiple times without a license or proper authorization,” the company alleged. Another feature, known as Reels Remix, that let users incorporate another user’s Reel into their own, also led to infringement, according to Epidemic.

The case was the second Epidemic filed against Meta, following a related case filed in 2022. The court related the two cases but declined to stay the later-filed case pending summary judgment ruling in the earlier matter. Meta moved to dismiss Epidemic’s complaint in the 2025 case.

Direct infringement. Meta argued that Epidemic “does not identify any specifically allegedly unauthorized content on Meta’s platforms that contains audio substantially similar to any of Epidemic’s Asserted Works,” necessary for a valid copyright claim.

The court found that Epidemic failed to “identify or allege any facts” about the allegedly infringing work in the Music Library, Original Audio, or Reels Remix features, making it impossible to determine whether Epidemic has “alleged substantial similarity” between its work and the allegedly infringing material.

Epidemic argued that the court doesn’t need to consider substantial similarity since it is alleging “wholesale reproduction” of its work. But, the court found, the company still failed to allege sufficient facts to lead to that conclusion, instead providing only “conclusory allegations” such as “Meta has been offering Epidemic’s works” and “Meta has included at least 500 of the Works in its Audio Library.” Other cases cited by Epidemic, the court found, included allegations of how alleged copyright infringement took place, or “samples of the allegedly infringing works or their advertisement from which the courts could draw a reasonable inference of substantial similarity.”

Additionally, Epidemic argued it “sufficiently alleged the facts necessary to put Meta on notice of the nature and grounds of its claims.” But, under the Iqbal standard and later precedent, “Epidemic must plead facts which, accepted as true, create a plausible inference Epidemic is entitled to relief on those claims,” according to the ruling. By filing the complaint, the company has represented it has a factual basis to believe copyright in its work has been infringed by the material on Meta’s platforms, but it has failed to allege that factual basis in its complaint, the court found.

Contributory infringement. Meta also moved to dismiss Epidemic’s contributory infringement claims, arguing the company failed to allege direct infringement by a third party, necessary for a finding of contributory infringement. Epidemic argued that it had sufficiently alleged direct infringement, but since the court found that it failed to do so, it also dismissed Epidemic’s claims for contributory infringement and inducement of infringement.

The court gave Epidemic leave to amend the complaint “to the extent it can plausibly allege Meta’s infringing works are substantially similar to each of its copyright protected works” by August 14, 2026, though it may not add new claims or allege infringement of new works without leave from the court.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-10355-JSC.

Judge: Corley, J.

Attorneys: Maryaneh Mona Simonian (Pryor Cashman LLP) for Epidemic Sound, AB. Joseph Richard Wetzel (Latham and Watkins LLP) for Meta Platforms, Inc.

Companies: Epidemic Sound, AB; Meta Platforms, Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews