Zee Entertainment's copyright infringement suit against Nykaa over the alleged unauthorised use of Zee-owned music on Instagram raises a difficult but increasingly common legal question: when branded content uses music accessed through a licenced social media platform, where does liability finally rest?
With Zee choosing not to implead Meta, despite having a direct licencing relationship with the platform, the spotlight has shifted to whether Nykaa can credibly push responsibility upstream.
At its core, the dispute sits at the intersection of copyright law, intermediary liability and platform-licencing structures that distinguish between personal and commercial use. While the factual matrix appears simple, the legal consequences are not.
Why Zee Sued Nykaa And Not Meta?
Zee has licenced its music catalogue to Meta, a fact that is not in dispute. Mohit Lahoty, partner at ThinkLaw, explains that the broadcaster entered into this arrangement fully aware of how the content would be consumed. "Zee licenced its music library to Meta knowing that this would be used by Meta's users," he said. Meta then makes that music available across its platform, including for reels, stories and posts.
However, that licence is not unrestricted. "This licence was for non‑commercial use," Lahoty said. "For‑profit entities are expected to engage directly with Zee."
Nykaa is clearly a for‑profit company and the content in question was promotional. Yet Zee has not alleged breach of contract by Meta, opting instead to enforce its copyright directly against the brand. Some senior legal experts say this is a strategic choice rather than a legal omission. Meta is a critical enforcement partner for music labels, particularly in combating large‑scale piracy. A direct contractual dispute could disrupt a commercially valuable relationship.
From a legal standpoint, Zee is also entitled to proceed this way. Copyright infringement is a statutory wrong. The existence of a parallel contract between Zee and Meta does not prevent Zee from suing an alleged infringer directly. Zee does not have to test adjudication of Meta's licensing compliance before enforcing its copyright.
Intermediary Status, Licencing Limits and User Responsibility
Meta's position as an intermediary complicates matters further. If platforms qualify for safe harbour protection, why do they licence music at all. The answer lies in risk management. Licencing allows Meta to host music lawfully, but its terms place obligations on users to ensure they exploit that content within permitted limits.
Senior legal experts point out that Meta's licencing deals with labels are both usage‑specific and rights‑specific. Labels typically grant sound recording and limited digital exploitation rights. Commercial exploitation by brands is expressly carved out or restricted. Business accounts are expected to comply with these limits when using platform libraries.
This is where Nykaa's defence encounters difficulty. Even if Nykaa accessed the music through a licenced library, it did so as a business account using the content for promotion. Experts emphasise that access does not equate to clearance. Once a user operates as a business, the responsibility to assess whether a particular use is commercial rests with the brand.
Lahoty underlines this structural weakness in Nykaa's position. "Meta leaves it to its user base to make an informed choice about whether they are a business user or a regular user," he said. Enforcement typically follows identification of a violation, not prior vetting. If a business account accessed content that should not have been available under the licence, the primary breach under platform terms is attributed to the user.
There is also a contractual asymmetry that Nykaa cannot easily overcome. Zee's agreement is with Meta. Nykaa's agreement is with Meta. There is no direct contractual bridge allowing Nykaa to enforce Zee's licencing restrictions against Meta as a defence to infringement. At best, Nykaa can argue factual mitigation, not legal absolution.
Nykaa may still attempt to argue that Meta's failure to technically restrict access contributed to the violation. Experts say that argument has limited traction. Platform enforcement mechanisms operate post‑violation and case by case. The law does not require intermediaries to pre‑emptively police every upload. It requires them to act once infringement is identified.
Why Brands, Not Platforms, Are Economic Target
Cases like Zee v Nykaa carry significant financial consequences for both rights holders and brands. India's music licencing ecosystem is estimated to be losing Rs 8,000–10,000 crore annually due to unlicenced or improperly licensed usage, even as the recorded music market itself is valued at roughly Rs 3,200 crore, with licencing and sync emerging as key growth drivers.
Industry experts have repeatedly pointed out that branded digital content, particularly on social media platforms, is one of the largest sources of revenue leakage, driven by the mistaken belief that platform availability equates to rights clearance.
Litigation against brands, therefore, serves a dual commercial purpose for music labels: recovering potential damages while signalling that promotional use of music sits firmly within the commercial licensing domain. For businesses, the financial exposure is no longer limited to takedowns or muted audio but extends to multi‑crore legal claims, as seen in recent high‑profile disputes involving fashion and consumer brands.
One senior legal expert familiar with how platforms manage music rights explains that enforcement lag is often a practical issue. Taking content down through internal tools takes time. Litigation becomes the faster enforcement route when rights owners seek immediate restraint. That does not, however, transfer liability away from the user who committed the infringing act.
The implications of the case extend beyond Nykaa and Zee. If Zee succeeds, copyright societies may intensify scrutiny of commercial use of platform music by brands. It also reinforces a cautionary lesson for advertisers. Platform availability is not a substitute for licencing diligence.
Nykaa's argument that it relied on Meta's licenced ecosystem may soften the narrative but not the law. As Lahoty put it, “The strongest point Nykaa can raise is that the content it used was available on a licensed platform. But copyright law places the burden of lawful use on the entity that exploits the work.”
Emails have been sent seeking comments from Zee, Nykaa and Meta on the issue and the piece will be updated once comments are received.
ALSO READ: Zee Wants Wider Court Protection Against Nykaa Copyright Violations
Essential Business Intelligence, Continuous LIVE TV, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.