Elon Musk’s X Corp and a coalition of major music publishers, including Universal Music Group and Sony Music Publishing, have agreed to end their long-running legal dispute over copyrighted music on the X platform, bringing an end to one of the most significant copyright battles facing the social media company.

Court filings made on Thursday show that both sides jointly asked federal courts in Tennessee and Texas to dismiss their respective lawsuits.

The parties requested that the cases be dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither side can revive the same claims in the future. While the filings strongly suggest the dispute has been resolved, neither X nor the publishers disclosed whether a financial settlement or licensing agreement was reached.

Representatives for X, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Publishing, and the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) declined to comment on the filings or provide additional details.

The legal battle began in 2023, when a coalition of 17 music publishers filed a lawsuit against X in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee. The publishers accused X of allowing users to upload and distribute copyrighted songs without obtaining the necessary music licenses or taking sufficient action to remove infringing content.

The lawsuit sought more than $250 million in damages, alleging infringement of nearly 1,700 copyrighted musical works. According to the complaint, X “routinely ignores” copyright violations while competing social media platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube have negotiated licensing agreements with rights holders that compensate songwriters and publishers when copyrighted music is used on their services.

The case highlighted a key distinction in the social media industry. While platforms generally benefit from “safe harbor” protections under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when they promptly remove infringing content after receiving notices, rights holders argued that X failed to implement adequate systems to prevent repeated copyright violations.

In 2024, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger narrowed the publishers’ case, dismissing allegations that X was directly or vicariously liable for copyright infringement. However, the court allowed a central claim of contributory copyright infringement to proceed, finding that the publishers had plausibly argued X may have knowingly facilitated infringement by failing to adequately address repeated unauthorized uses of copyrighted music.

That ruling kept substantial legal pressure on X and left the company exposed to potentially significant damages if the case ultimately went to trial.

Rather than limiting its defense to the copyright lawsuit, X escalated the dispute earlier this year. In January, the company filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Texas accusing the publishers of violating U.S. antitrust laws.

X alleged that the publishers had coordinated their licensing strategies through the National Music Publishers Association, refusing to negotiate individual licensing agreements and instead collectively forcing the platform to accept what it described as artificially inflated licensing fees.

The publishers rejected those allegations and asked the Texas court in April to dismiss the case.

Now, both the copyright lawsuit in Tennessee and the antitrust action in Texas are set to be dismissed, bringing an end to litigation that had expanded beyond copyright into broader questions surrounding competition in the digital music licensing market.

However, the resolution has removed a significant legal overhang for X as Musk continues efforts to transform the platform into what he has described as an “everything app.” Music licensing has become an increasingly important issue for social media platforms as video content drives user engagement. Platforms that lack comprehensive licensing agreements face growing legal risks because copyrighted music frequently appears in user-generated videos.

Unlike TikTok, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube, X has historically maintained a more limited portfolio of music licensing agreements, leaving it vulnerable to lawsuits from rights holders.

The dismissal of the litigation could indicate that the parties have reached a commercial understanding behind the scenes, although no licensing arrangement has been publicly confirmed. If such an agreement exists, it could improve X’s ability to compete with rival platforms that have long offered licensed music libraries for creators while reducing future litigation risks.

China has warned that the United Kingdom’s decision to nationalize British Steel could damage Chinese investor confidence and strain bilateral investment relations, marking the latest escalation in a dispute that has become a test case for the balance between national security and foreign investment.

China’s Foreign Ministry said on Saturday it would closely monitor Britain’s handling of the nationalization and take “appropriate measures” to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies if necessary.

The warning follows Britain’s formal nationalization of British Steel on Thursday, completing the government’s takeover of the loss-making steelmaker from China’s privately owned Jingye Group after months of political and legal wrangling over the future of the strategically important business.

“The issue has drawn widespread attention in China,” the ministry said in a statement.

It added that Britain’s handling of the case would “directly affect Chinese investors’ confidence in the UK’s investment climate” and influence public perceptions in China regarding the credibility and reliability of the British government as a destination for foreign investment.

The ministry urged London to pursue a mutually acceptable resolution with Jingye, including arrangements for compensation, rather than relying solely on administrative action.

The statement comes off as one of Beijing’s strongest public interventions over the dispute and suggests the issue is no longer viewed as a commercial disagreement but as a matter affecting broader China-UK economic relations.

Jingye Steel has already signaled that it intends to seek compensation for losses arising from the takeover.

The company said it has initiated consultation procedures under the China-United Kingdom Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), the first formal step before potential international investment arbitration.

Under most bilateral investment treaties, investors can seek compensation if they believe a host government has unlawfully expropriated assets or failed to provide fair and equitable treatment. If consultations fail, disputes can typically proceed to international arbitration, where governments may face substantial compensation claims.

Jingye said it hopes the British government will fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of the company as well as those of other Chinese businesses and international investors.

The Chinese steelmaker has argued that it invested heavily after acquiring British Steel in 2020, committing significant capital to modernize production facilities and replace ageing equipment.

From Jingye’s perspective, the nationalization risks depriving it of the value created through those investments.

National Security Concerns Drove Britain’s Intervention

Britain’s takeover culminates a process that began in April 2025 when the government seized operational control of British Steel, citing national security concerns and the importance of maintaining domestic steel production. British Steel operates one of the country’s last remaining blast furnace facilities capable of producing virgin steel, which is considered critical for sectors including defense, infrastructure, railways, and major construction projects.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government subsequently announced plans to fully nationalize the company, arguing that continued government ownership was necessary to safeguard jobs, preserve industrial capacity and secure long-term steel production.

The formal nationalization completed this week transfers ownership entirely to the British state after the government concluded that a private-sector solution was no longer viable.

The dispute comes at a sensitive time for China’s overseas investments. Chinese companies have increasingly faced tighter scrutiny across Western economies as governments expand national security reviews covering sectors such as steel, semiconductors, telecommunications, critical minerals, energy infrastructure and artificial intelligence.

The British Steel case is seen as another indication that geopolitical considerations are increasingly influencing investment policy, even where assets are owned by private rather than state-owned Chinese companies. Beijing’s warning suggests Chinese authorities are concerned that the nationalization could discourage future Chinese investment in Britain by raising questions about regulatory certainty and property rights.

China’s Foreign Ministry urged the British government to “make decisions prudently,” calling on London to respect market principles, honor companies’ wishes and avoid what it described as the abuse of administrative coercive measures.

Potential Impact on UK-China Relations

Beyond British Steel itself, the dispute risks becoming another point of friction in an already complicated UK-China relationship. Britain has in recent years tightened investment screening rules under the National Security and Investment Act, giving ministers broad powers to block or unwind foreign acquisitions involving strategically sensitive sectors.

Several Chinese investments have faced increased regulatory scrutiny as successive British governments have sought to reduce dependence on foreign ownership in critical infrastructure while strengthening economic security.

If Jingye proceeds to international arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty, the dispute could extend over several years and potentially result in a substantial compensation claim against the British government.

The outcome may also serve as an important precedent for how future disputes involving Chinese investors are handled, particularly as Western governments continue to strengthen national security oversight of foreign investment in strategic industries.