Exhibit 6 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:

1122
 

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 1 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:

1123
2 

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). 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 2 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:

1124
3 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 3 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:

1125
4 

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 4 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:

1126
5 

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 5 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:

1127
6 

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-generateCase 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 6 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:

1128
7 

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). 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 7 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:

1129
8 

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-frombang-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). 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 8 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:

1130
9 

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: 

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: 

FIGURE 1

Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 9 of 20

1131
10 

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: 

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: 

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 10 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:

1132
11 

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. 

FIGURE 4

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 11 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:

1133
12 

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 

Guidelines) (last visited August 26, 2022); Music Guidelines, Facebook, 

https://www.facebook.com/legal/music_guidelines (last visited August 26, 2022). 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 12 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:

1134
13 

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 endusers (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”: 

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). 

FIGURE 5 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 13 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:

1135
14 

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) 

59. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set 

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 14 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:

1136
15 

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) 

65. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 15 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:

1137
16 

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, 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 16 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:

1138
17 

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) 

72. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint as if fully set 

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 placement of the Bang Videos on the social media platforms referenced above. Defendants 

also have the ability to remove the Bang Videos from each platform. Defendants receive a direct 

financial benefit from 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, including (among 

other financial benefits) increased brand recognition and product sales. 

75. Defendants’ acts of vicarious infringement are knowing, deliberate, willful, and 

in utter disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights. 

76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ vicarious 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). 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 17 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:

1139
18 

77. Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant 

to 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

78. 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 vicarious infringement of 

Plaintiffs’ copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

(a) for a permanent injunction requiring that Defendants, and their officers, 

agents, employees, attorneys, and others in active concert or participation 

with each or any of them, cease infringing, or causing, enabling, 

facilitating, encouraging, promoting, inducing, and/or participating in the 

infringement of, any of Plaintiffs’ copyrights protected by the Copyright 

Act, whether now in existence or hereafter created; 

(b) for Plaintiffs’ actual damages and Defendants’ profits from infringement, 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), in amounts to be proven at trial, or, in the 

alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), for 

maximum statutory damages in the amount of $150,000 per infringed 

work, or such other amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c); 

(c) for Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 17 

U.S.C. §§ 505 and 1203(b)(4), (5) and otherwise; 

(d) for prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 18 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:

1140
19 

(e) for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

 

Date: September 15, 2022 

By: /s/ Ian M. Ross 

IAN M. ROSS 

iross@sidley.com 

Fla. Bar No. 091214 

STEPHANIE PERAL 

speral@sidley.com 

Fla. Bar No. 119324 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: +1 305 391 5100 

Rollin A. Ransom (pro hac vice to be filed) 

rransom@sidley.com 

Kristina Martinez (pro hac vice to be filed) 

kmartinez@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, CA 90013 

Telephone: +1 213 896 6000 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 19 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:

1141
20 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand 

a trial by jury. 

Date: September 15, 2022 

By: /s/ Ian M. Ross 

Ian M. Ross 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:22-cv-22951-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 20 of 20 Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-15 Filed 01/29/24 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:

1142