Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO.
`
`ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION;
`ATLANTIC RECORDS GROUP LLC; WARNER
`RECORDS INC.; ASYLUM WORLDWIDE LLC;
`BAD BOY RECORDS LLC; RHINO
`ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY; RHINO
`ENTERTAINMENT LLC; SPINNIN RECORDS
`B.V.; WARNER MUSIC INTERNATIONAL
`SERVICES LIMITED; WARNER MUSIC
`LATINA INC.; GENE AUTRY'S WESTERN
`MUSIC PUBLISHING CO.; UNICHAPPELL
`MUSIC INC.; W CHAPPELL MUSIC CORP.;
`WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.; and
`WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/b/a BANG
`ENERGY, JACK OWOC and DOES 1-10,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`Plaintiffs Atlantic Recording Corporation, Atlantic Records Group LLC, Warner Records
`Inc., Asylum Worldwide LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, Rhino Entertainment Company, Rhino
`Entertainment LLC, Spinnin Records B.V., Warner Music International Services Limited, Warner
`Music Latina Inc., Gene Autry’s Western Music Publishing Co., Unichappell Music Inc., W
`Chappell Music Corp., Warner Chappell Music, Inc., and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp.
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, allege as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`All Plaintiffs are related affiliates of Warner Music Group Corp. (“WMG”), one
`of the world’s largest music entertainment companies. Through its affiliated recorded music and
`music publishing companies, including Plaintiffs, WMG produces, manufactures, distributes,
`sells, and licenses a legion of iconic and popular sound recordings and musical compositions.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 2 of 20
`
`These works include legendary sound recordings and musical compositions of the past, as well
`as many of today’s biggest hits.
`2.
`Defendant Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. d/b/a Bang Energy (“Bang”) markets, sells,
`and distributes energy drinks, sports and nutrition supplements, apparel, and accessories, and
`claims to be “the nation’s leading energy and lifestyle brand.”1
`3.
`Defendant Jack Owoc (“Owoc,” and collectively with Bang and Does 1-10,
`“Defendants”) is Bang’s founder, CEO, Chief Scientific Officer, and owner.
`4.
`Defendants have achieved widespread commercial success by infringing
`Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions on a massive scale.
`5.
`Defendants have largely eschewed traditional advertising, relying instead upon
`promotion of Bang’s products through social media websites and mobile applications such as
`Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.
`6.
`Defendants’ primary use of these platforms is to post or facilitate the posting of
`videos demonstrating use of Bang’s products. These videos (each, a “Bang Video,” and
`collectively, the “Bang Videos”) feature popular sound recordings and musical compositions as
`integral parts of the presentation; indeed, there is typically no speaking or sound in the videos
`other than the music integrated into the video.
`7.
`While these social media “commercials” have been instrumental to Bang’s
`success, Defendants have not paid to use the sound recordings and musical compositions that are
`featured in them. Defendants have misappropriated nearly two hundred of Plaintiffs’ most
`popular and valuable sound recordings and musical compositions (the “Copyrighted Musical
`Works”), including sound recordings and musical compositions featuring such chart-topping and
`award-winning artists as Bruno Mars, Cardi B, Dua Lipa, Jack Harlow, Lizzo, Saweetie, and Van
`Halen. Bang has used the Copyrighted Musical Works to drive sales to Bang and increase Bang’s
`brand awareness and profile without any compensation to Plaintiffs.
`
`
`1 See https://bangenergy.com/about/ (last visited August 26, 2022).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 3 of 20
`
`8.
`As part of their infringing marketing efforts, Defendants have partnered with
`“influencers” – individuals who create infringing Bang Videos and post those videos on their
`own pages, some of which Defendants then repost on Bang’s social media pages. Defendants
`compensate these influencers with free product, commissions, discounts, and/or direct monetary
`payment, sometimes tied to Bang’s sales of the product(s) featured in the Bang Videos.
`9.
`Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and musical compositions, including the Copyrighted
`Musical Works, are protected by copyright law, which grants the copyright owner the exclusive
`right to, among other things, reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works of those
`copyrighted works, to publicly perform musical compositions, and to digitally transmit sound
`recordings to the public. An important portion of Plaintiffs’ return on their investment in sound
`recordings and musical compositions, which they share with their exclusive recording artists and
`songwriters, comes from licensing sound recordings and musical compositions to others who use
`Plaintiffs’ musical works in videos, films, television shows, commercials, video games, and on
`social media, with the glaring exception of Defendants, who have done so without a license.
`10.
`Defendants’ conduct, in which they take and exploit Plaintiffs’ valuable
`intellectual property without any compensation to Plaintiffs or their respective recording artists
`and/or songwriters, has caused Plaintiffs substantial and irreparable harm. Plaintiffs bring this
`action to obtain redress for Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ valuable rights and to prevent
`further violations of those rights.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`11.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`1338(a), insofar as this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
`12.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1400(a).
`13.
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, among other things:
`(a) Bang is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in this state and this District;
`(b) on information and belief, Owoc is domiciled in this state and this District; (c) Defendants
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 4 of 20
`
`have been doing business continuously in and maintain a regular presence in this state and this
`District; (d) a substantial part of the wrongful acts occurred within this state and this District; and
`(e) the effects of Defendants’ unlawful conduct are directed toward and felt in this state and this
`District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`14.
`Plaintiff Atlantic Recording Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York.
`15.
`Plaintiff Atlantic Records Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York.
`16.
`Plaintiff Warner Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`17.
`Plaintiff Asylum Worldwide LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
`its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York.
`18.
`Plaintiff Bad Boy Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York.
`19.
`Plaintiff Rhino Entertainment Company is a Delaware corporation with its
`principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`20.
`Plaintiff Rhino Entertainment LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
`its principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`21.
`Plaintiff Spinnin Records B.V. is a company organized and existing under the
`laws of the Netherlands, with its principal place of business at Marathon 4, Hilversum, The
`Netherlands.
`22.
`Plaintiff Warner Music International Services Limited is a limited liability
`company organized and existing under the laws of England and Wales, with its principal place
`of business at 27 Wrights Lane, London, England.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 5 of 20
`
`23.
`Plaintiff Warner Music Latina Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`place of business at 555 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida.
`24.
`Plaintiff Gene Autry’s Western Music Publishing Co. is a California corporation
`with its principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`25.
`Plaintiff Unichappell Music Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`26.
`Plaintiff W Chappell Music Corp. is a California corporation with its principal
`place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`27.
`Plaintiff Warner Chappell Music, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`28.
`Plaintiff Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. is California corporation with its
`principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`Defendants
`29.
`Defendant Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. d/b/a Bang Energy is a Florida corporation
`with its principal place of business at 1600 North Park Drive, Weston, Florida.
`30.
`Defendant Jack Owoc is the founder, CEO, Chief Scientific Officer, and owner
`of Bang, and a citizen of Florida.
`31.
`Defendants Does 1 through 10 own, operate or are affiliates, agents, or employees
`of Bang, and/or are otherwise responsible for and proximately caused and are causing the harm
`and damages alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the true names and/or
`the involvement of Defendants sued herein by the fictitious designations Does 1 through 10, and
`for that reason, sue them by those designations. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this pleading
`to identify those Defendants when their true names and involvement in the infringements and
`other wrongful conduct hereinafter described are known.
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGING CONDUCT
`32.
`Bang sells energy drinks, nutrition supplements, apparel, and accessories. It was
`founded in 1993 by Owoc, who remains its CEO.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 6 of 20
`
`33.
`In recent years, Bang has experienced extraordinary growth. Bang’s energy
`drinks are now the third highest-selling brand of energy drink in the United States, and Bang
`achieved net sales of approximately $2.37 billion and gross profits of approximately $1.3 billion
`between 2017 and 2021 (over half of which has been achieved since early 2020).
`34.
`Key to Bang’s growth and success has been Defendants’ use of social media
`platforms, including most notably TikTok and Instagram, to promote Bang’s products:
` Bang’s TikTok account (username @bangenergy) has approximately 1.5 million
`followers and 4.4 million likes.
` Owoc’s TikTok account (username @bangenergyceo) separately has in excess of
`850,000 followers and has garnered more than 2 million likes.
` Bang’s Instagram account (username @bangenergy) has 2.3 million followers.
` Owoc’s Instagram account (username @bangenergy.ceo) separately has 1.1
`million followers.
` Defendants’ Facebook account (username @BANGenergy) has over 104,000
`followers and nearly 100,000 likes.
` Bang uses several additional social media accounts to promote its energy
`products, including TikTok accounts with the usernames @redline.energy,
`@stoked.beverage, and @noofuzion, and Instagram accounts with the usernames
`@redline_energy, @stokedbeverage, and @noofuzion, among many others.
`35.
`Video “commercials” posted to these accounts have been essential to Defendants’
`success. Indeed, virtually every article written about Bang references Bang’s social media
`presence as one – if not the – reason for Bang’s massive growth. See, e.g., “How Bang Energy’s
`flashy, neon world of influencers conquered TikTok,” Morning Brew (available at
`https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/bang-energy-conquered-tik-tok) (noting that “[t]he
`beverage company has leveraged social media fame into millions in sales”); “How Bang Energy
`Drink Influencers Tap Into Gen Z to Generate $300 Million in Sales,” Extole (available at
`https://www.extole.com/blog/how-bang-energy-drink-influencers-tap-into-gen-z-to-generate-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 7 of 20
`
`300-million-in-sales/) (reporting that Bang achieved record sales in 2020 through its social
`media/influencer marketing strategy, “while spending just $2,200 on traditional media”); “Why
`Bang Energy
`Is Pioneering
`Influencer Marketing,” Asian Blurb
`(available at
`https://www.asianblurb.com/bang-energy/) (noting that “influencer-based projects have given
`the Bang brand its social media edge”).
`36.
`The Bang Videos rely heavily on commercial music – including the Copyrighted
`Musical Works – as a critical element in promoting Bang’s products. The Bang Videos typically
`depict individuals showcasing one or more of Bang’s energy drinks or supplements,
`synchronized to an audio track of a popular commercially available sound recording and musical
`composition. The audio tracks generally run the full length of the Bang Videos and the Bang
`Videos typically include the most familiar portion of the featured sound recording and musical
`composition.
`37. Many of these Bang Videos were initially created by social media influencers –
`third parties who have garnered a substantial audience of “followers,” and whom Bang
`compensates by, among other things, providing free, new, or yet-to-be-released products that the
`influencers can feature in their videos and/or by providing monetary compensation either directly
`or through commissions and/or rebates. In addition to actively supporting the creation and
`posting of these Bang Videos to the influencers’ own social media accounts, Defendants review,
`select, and repost certain of the influencer-created Bang Videos on Defendants’ own social media
`pages.
`38.
`Among Defendants’ influencer collaborators are well-known individuals such as
`Michael Le, who has 51.9 million TikTok followers, and Q Park (nee Joyce Tanner), who has
`33.8 million TikTok followers, both of whom have created videos that infringe Copyrighted
`Musical Works, as well as micro-influencers known to “sport vibrant outfits with the Bang logo
`and create fun dance videos or skits with the products.”2
`
`
`2 See https://neoreach.com/bang-energy-campaign-teardown/ (last visited August 26, 2022).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 8 of 20
`
`39.
`Bang seeks and maintains its relationships with these social media influencers
`through, among other things, its “Bang Influencers” Marketing Program.3 The “Bang
`Influencers” are tasked with developing and posting “unique and remarkable content across all
`social media platforms.”4 Bang has written agreements with at least some of these third parties
`– and is willing to pay significant sums for influencer videos.5 In turn, “Bang owns the videos
`that Bang Influencers create under their agreement, either through a work for hire arrangement
`or assignment to Bang.” UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 21-CV-60914-CIV,
`2022 WL 2670339, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2022) (“UMG”). “Under the terms of Bang’s
`agreements with the Influencers, the Influencers are subject to Bang’s supervision, direction, and
`control with respect to the promotion of Bang.” Sony Music Entertainment v. Vital Pharms.,
`Inc., No. 21-CV-22825-WPD, slip op. at 4-5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2022) (“Sony”).
`40.
`As a condition for compensation, “Bang instructs influencers to submit their
`videos to Bang’s Influencer Program auditioning team with links to any music, and it’s the
`auditioning team’s responsibility to ensure that the Bang Videos conform to Bang’s Social Media
`Guidelines.” UMG, 2022 WL 2670339, at *2. To that end, Bang employs professional staff –
`the “Influencer Program” team – whose responsibilities include reviewing and selecting those
`videos and working with and overseeing the influencers with whom Bang partners, which
`includes advising on content. Id.
`41.
`Bang’s Social Media Guidelines “define what Bang Influencers must include in
`their videos, including consuming the product on camera, ensuring that the logo is facing the
`camera, and what to wear.” Id. at *3. The Social Media Guidelines also “require Bang
`
`
`3 See https://bangenergycasting.com/what-does-it-take/ (last visited August 26, 2022); see also
`https://www.linkedin.com/in/isabel-bolivar-40b5b8148/ (listing the various roles in Bang’s
`Influencer Program, including “Program Manager” and “Recruitment Manager”) (last visited
`August 26, 2022); see also https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasmine-jane-mellor-421093166/ (listing
`various roles in Bang’s Influencer Program, including “Influencer Recruitment Coordinator”) (last
`visited August 26, 2022).
`4 See https://bangenergycasting.com/what-does-it-take/ (last visited August 26, 2022).
`5 See https://www.insider.com/tana-mongeau-youtuber-said-she-turned-down-2-million-from-
`bang-energy-2019-11 (“YouTuber Tana Mongeau told her subscribers that she turned down a $2
`million sponsorship deal from the drink company Bang Energy.”) (last visited August 26, 2022).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 9 of 20
`
`Influencers to ‘tag’ Defendants in their TikTok posts ‘in order to receive compensation.’” Id.
`Bang “insists that it is ‘really important’ that Bang Influencers tag Bang and Owoc in their videos
`so that Bang stays ‘relevant with [its] fans.’” Id. Notably, Bang’s Social Media Guidelines for
`2020, 2021, and 2022 do not prohibit the use of copyrighted music in videos posted by the Bang
`Influencers. Id.
`42.
`The Bang Videos routinely infringe WMG’s copyrights in the Copyrighted
`Musical Works. For example, Figure 1 is a screen capture from a Bang Instagram post that
`contains a video featuring “Rock Yo Hips” by WMG recording artist Crime Mob. The video
`shows a lineup of various flavors of Bang energy drink, while the Bang influencer dances and lip
`synchs along to the lyrics “thirty-two flavors” and “raspberry, grape, cherry” – all of which are
`Bang flavors:
`
`
`FIGURE 1
`43.
`Similarly, Figure 2 is a screen capture from one of Owoc’s Instagram posts
`featuring “Cupid Shuffle” by WMG recording artist Cupid. The video depicts two Bang
`influencers, wearing Bang clothing and in front of a Bang-decorated jeep, dancing the “Cupid
`Shuffle,” a dance made popular by the infringed WMG recording:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 10 of 20
`
`FIGURE 2
`44.
`Likewise, Figure 3 is a screen capture from a Bang TikTok post featuring the
`WMG musical composition “Holiday” performed by Lil Nas X. The video promotes “holiday
`shoot ideas” while the influencers go thrift store shopping for a holiday outfit:
`
`
`FIGURE 3
`45.
`Figure 4 is a screen capture from a Bang Instagram post promoting Bang’s “Bang
`Shot” beverage, featuring models posing with and drinking Bang Shots, which uses the WMG
`musical composition “Shots” performed by LMFAO and Lil Jon; the corresponding Instagram
`post includes a “limited offer” promoting a discounted price for Bang Shots as well as free Bang
`merchandise to purchasers:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`
`FIGURE 4
`46.
`Recognizing the importance of the music to the social media posts, Defendants
`often specifically identify the featured sound recording and/or musical composition, as reflected
`in the examples shown in Figure 2 (calling out Defendants’ unauthorized use of WMG’s sound
`recording “Cupid Shuffle” embodying Cupid’s performance) and Figure 3 (calling out
`Defendants’ unauthorized use of WMG’s musical composition “Holiday” performed by Lil Nas
`X).
`
`47.
`Likewise, the Bang Videos routinely identify and promote the particular Bang
`products that are being showcased and/or specifically call out and promote other Bang products,
`services or specials. For example, Figure 1 (featuring unauthorized use of WMG’s sound
`recording “Rock Yo Hips” by Crime Mob) and Figure 2 (featuring unauthorized use of WMG’s
`sound recording “Cupid Shuffle” by Cupid) call out and tag the Bang energy drink NooFuzion
`and Figure 4 (featuring unauthorized use of WMG’s musical composition “Shots” performed by
`LMFAO and Lil Jon) promotes a “limited offer” on Bang Shots.
`48.
`Defendants have generated global brand awareness for Bang and billions of
`dollars in sales through the ubiquity and effectiveness of the infringing Bang Videos, many of
`which have received millions of views.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 12 of 20
`
`49.
`Defendants achieved that success through blatant, willful, and repeated copyright
`infringement of content owned by record labels and music publishers, including infringement of
`Plaintiffs’ most popular and valuable sound recordings and musical compositions. Indeed,
`although Defendants routinely and prominently feature WMG’s Copyrighted Musical Works in
`Bang Videos, they have paid nothing for the right to use those works. Instead, they simply stole
`the Copyrighted Musical Works and reaped the benefits of their use without ever accounting to
`WMG.
`50.
`Attached as Exhibit A is an initial list of sound recordings and musical
`compositions of which the identified Plaintiff is an owner or exclusive licensee in the United
`States of rights under copyright, which rights have been infringed by Defendants. Each listed
`sound recording and musical composition either: 1) is registered in the United States Copyright
`Office; or 2) is a sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, and included on a schedule
`filed with the Copyright Office pursuant to the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music
`Modernization Act. Plaintiffs’ investigation continues, and discovery is likely to reveal
`additional infringements of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions.
`Plaintiffs intend to seek leave to amend this Complaint at an appropriate time to provide an
`expanded list of works infringed by Defendants.
`51. Moreover, Defendants’ infringement was clearly willful. Among other things, the
`social media platforms on which the infringing Bang Videos were posted expressly state that
`users have no right to infringe music, particularly in connection with commercial activities.
`52.
`For example, the Instagram Terms of Use incorporate Music Guidelines, which
`are maintained in the “Legal” section of the Meta website. Those Music Guidelines expressly
`provide as follows: “Use of music for commercial or non-personal purposes in particular is
`prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses.”6 These specific prohibitions have
`been incorporated in the Instagram and Meta Terms of Use since at least May 2018.
`
`6 Terms of Use, Instagram, http://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 (incorporating Music
`visited August
`Guidelines)
`(last
`26,
`2022); Music Guidelines,
`Facebook,
`https://www.facebook.com/legal/music_guidelines (last visited August 26, 2022).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 13 of 20
`
`53.
`Similarly, the TikTok Terms of Service unequivocally state that no rights are
`granted respecting use of sound recordings and musical works:
`
`NO RIGHTS ARE LICENSED WITH RESPECT TO SOUND
`RECORDINGS AND THE MUSICAL WORKS EMBODIED THEREIN
`THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE FROM OR THROUGH THE
`SERVICE.7
`The foregoing language has been included in TikTok’s Terms of Service since at least February
`2019.
`54. Moreover, since at least August 2020, TikTok has affirmatively required end-
`users (such as Defendants) to confirm, before posting a video, that they “have received all
`necessary rights (including publishing rights and master recording rights) to use any music in
`[the] video”:
`
`FIGURE 5
`55.
`The posting of Bang Videos to the social media accounts of Bang and its
`influencers, despite these express prohibitions, is the essence of willful infringement.
`
`
`7 Terms of Service, TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/legal/terms-of-service?lang=en (last visited
`August 26, 2022).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 14 of 20
`
`56.
`In April 2021, WMG first discovered the extensive infringement of the
`Copyrighted Musical Works in Defendants’ social media videos when record companies and
`music publishers affiliated with Universal Music Group (“UMG”), another major music
`company, sued Defendants in this Court.8 Shortly thereafter, on August 3, 2021, record
`companies affiliated with Sony Music Entertainment (“Sony”), another major music company,
`separately filed suit against Defendants in this Court.9
`57.
`On July 9, 2021, WMG demanded in writing that Defendants cease and desist
`from their infringement of WMG’s Copyrighted Musical Works. Defendants’ infringement
`nonetheless persisted, even in the face of two lawsuits and WMG’s cease-and-desist letter.
`Although Defendants eventually disabled access to certain infringing Bang Videos, other
`infringing Bang Videos identified in WMG’s cease-and-desist letter remained up for over a year.
`Moreover, even after receiving WMG’s cease-and-desist letter, Bang posted multiple new Bang
`Videos featuring the same Copyrighted Musical Works previously identified. Defendants’
`continued and additional infringement following receipt of WMG’s cease-and-desist letter (not
`to mention the lawsuits filed by UMG and Sony) is further compelling evidence of willfulness.
`58.
`On July 11, 2022, U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas granted UMG
`partial summary judgment in its action against Defendants, finding it “undisputed that Bang
`posted 140 TikTok videos utilizing portions of [UMG’s] copyrighted works,” and concluding
`that Defendants were liable for direct copyright infringement as a matter of law. See UMG, 2022
`WL 2670339, at *2. Similarly, on September 14, 2022, Judge Dimitrouleas granted Sony partial
`summary judgment in its action against Defendants, concluding that Defendants were liable for
`both direct and vicarious copyright infringement as a matter of law. See Sony, slip op. at 15, 24.
`
`COUNT I: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`59.
`forth herein.
`
`
`8 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 21-CV-60914-CIV.
`9 Sony Music Entertainment v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 21-CV-22825-WPD.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 15 of 20
`
`60.
`Defendants’ creation, posting/reposting, and/or streaming of the Bang Videos
`infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Copyrighted Musical Works. Among other things,
`Defendants have unlawfully reproduced, prepared derivative works from, distributed, publicly
`performed, and/or publicly performed by means of a digital audio transmission the copyrighted
`works listed on Exhibit A in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (2), (3), (4) and/or (6).
`61.
`Defendants’ acts of infringement are knowing, deliberate, willful, and in utter
`disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights.
`62.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’
`copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to their actual damages,
`including Defendants’ profits from infringement, in amounts to be proven at trial, pursuant to 17
`U.S.C. § 504(b). In the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c),
`Plaintiffs are entitled to the maximum statutory damages in the amount of $150,000 with respect
`to each work infringed, or such other amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`63.
`Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant
`to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`64.
`Defendants’ conduct is causing, and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue
`to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated or measured by
`monetary damages. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502,
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the infringement of Plaintiffs’
`copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
`COUNT II: CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`65.
`forth herein.
`66.
`As detailed above, the third-party influencers who created Bang Videos have
`likewise infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Copyrighted Musical Works, and Defendants are
`liable as contributory copyright infringers for the infringing acts of these influencers.
`Additionally, or alternatively, Defendants are liable as contributory copyright infringers by
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 16 of 20
`
`making the Bang Videos available to the users and subscribers of the social media platforms on
`which the Bang Videos were posted.
`67.
`By promoting and/or assisting with the creation of the infringing Bang Videos
`and/or by causing them to be copied, made available, and transmitted over Defendants’ social
`media accounts referenced above, Defendants materially contribute to the infringing
`reproduction, preparation of derivative works from, distribution, and/or public performance of
`the copyrighted works contained in the Bang Videos, including but not limited to the Copyrighted
`Musical Works listed in Exhibit A. Defendants have actual and constructive knowledge of such
`infringement, including actual or constructive knowledge that no Plaintiff granted the rights to
`include such Copyrighted Musical Works in the Bang Videos. In addition, Defendants have
`induced such infringement, including by promoting such infringement through the compensation
`paid to social media collaborators and other influencers, reposting the infringing videos, and
`calling out sound recordings and musical compositions used in the infringing Bang Videos.
`68.
`Defendants’ acts of contributory infringement are knowing, deliberate, willful,
`and in utter disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights.
`69.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ contributory infringement of
`Plaintiffs’ copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to their actual
`damages, including Defendants’ profits from infringement, in amounts to be proven at trial,
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). In the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
`§ 504(c), Plaintiffs are entitled to the maximum statutory damages in the amount of $150,000
`with respect to each work infringed, or such other amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C.
`§ 504(c).
`70.
`Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant
`to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`71.
`Defendants’ conduct is causing, and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue
`to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated or measured by
`monetary damages. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 17 of 20
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the contributory infringement of
`Plaintiffs’ copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
`COUNT III: VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`72.
`forth herein.
`73.
`As detailed above, third-party influencers who created Bang Videos have likewise
`infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Copyrighted Musical Works, and Defendants are
`vicariously liable for the infringing acts of these influencers. Additionally, or alternatively,
`Defendants are liable as vicarious copyright infringers by making the Bang Videos available to
`the users and subscribers of the social media platforms on which the Bang Videos were posted.
`74.
`Defendants have exercised the right, ability, and authority to control and supervise
`the place