Kroger’s Cincinnati headquarters. Photo Credit: Derek Jensen
Today in social media infringement lawsuits: A massive complaint against Kroger, which is accused of using all manner of Sony Music recordings in promotional clips without authorization.
Sony Music Entertainment (SME) and a number of its subsidiaries just recently submitted the lengthy action to a California federal court. On the opposite side of the legal battle, Cincinnati-headquartered Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) and many of its chains are named as defendants.
For those who’ve followed the industry’s bevy of social-focused copyright suits, Sony Music’s allegations will look familiar. The way the major label tells the story, Kroger has long been incorporating protected audio into uploads on platforms like TikTok and Instagram.
However, as underscored by a growing collection of settlements in similar suits – Designer Shoe Warehouse and SME last week moved to resolve their dispute – said platforms’ pre-cleared libraries are approved for personal, not commercial, use.
In the majors’ view, then, music-equipped videos uploaded to brands’ official profiles, on top of commissioned influencer clips containing tracks, constitute infringement.
When it comes to Kroger, Sony Music claims to have notified the retail giant of the alleged infringement in June 2025.
From there, the Fred Meyer and Dillons parent allegedly “made no effort to stop” the purportedly infringing activities. The most recent allegedly infringing content hit one of the relevant accounts earlier in August, per SME.
“Sony Music’s investigation is ongoing,” the major added for good measure, “and there are undoubtedly additional infringing videos Sony Music has yet to discover, including content made available for only a limited time on features such as Instagram Stories, Snapchat, TikTok Stories, and the like – platforms and features the Kroger Parties use for social media marketing.”
Besides not letting Kroger off the hook for these allegedly infringing temporary posts, Sony Music is adamant that it’s also entitled to compensation for allegedly infringing videos uploaded more than three years ago.
Allegations pertaining to the clips “are timely because this action was commenced within three years of the date Sony Music discovered, or reasonably should have discovered,” the alleged infringement, according to the legal text.
Could the contention possibly be true? Did the world’s second-largest music company, which meticulously monitors TikTok trends and has levied plenty of social infringement suits by now, really fail to quickly notice the presence of Harry Styles’ “Music for a Sushi Restaurant” in a Mariano’s Instagram video?
That interesting question is best left for another time. But at present, it seems safe to describe the potential inclusion of years-old allegedly infringing clips as indicative of the complaint’s comparatively expansive scope.
To be sure, overlap with other social media infringement claims aside, a few unique elements stand out here. Clocking in at a healthy 68 pages, the action – perhaps the inevitable result of the above-described pile of social-infringement settlements – is generally longer and heavier on specifics.
(Among the latter are marketing employee names and LinkedIn profile links as well as detailed brand-by-brand infringement examples. Across the board, there are by Sony Music’s count “at least 392 unique unauthorized uses of” its recordings in Kroger uploads and influencer videos.)
Adjacent to the point, the legal text certainly emphasizes the Fortune 500 defendant’s size. “Kroger disclosed that its advertising costs totaled approximately $1.18 billion in 2025,” one related line reads.
And unlike different complaints of this nature, Kroger isn’t framed as being bereft of licensing know-how or otherwise unwilling to pay for music.
“Kroger Co. previously entered into at least fourteen licenses with Sony Music from as early as 2017 and as recently as 2025 for the use of Sony Music Recordings in its advertisements,” another sentence reiterates.
Of course, it seems safe to assume that Kroger probably won’t be in a hurry to enter into additional licenses moving forward; the decision to put the professional relationship in the rearview and sue attests to the considerable damages at stake.
All told, the retailer is staring down claims for direct infringement, vicarious infringement (“Kroger Co. is vicariously liable for the infringing acts of” its subsidiaries), and contributory infringement (for allegedly driving influencers’ purported infringement) alike.
Leave a Reply