Virginia Court Enters Judgment for BTS and HYBE
A federal court in Virginia dismissed Melissa Mais's amended copyright complaint against BTS and its associated companies on October 22, entering judgment in favor of the defendants after giving her an earlier opportunity to repair her case.
Contents
The decision by Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia closed the case against BTS, HYBE, HYBE America and BIGHIT MUSIC. Mais had accused the group and the companies of using her unreleased songs without permission.
The court had already dismissed her original complaint on September 18 because it did not sufficiently present legally viable claims. Mais was allowed to submit a revised complaint by 5 p.m. on October 9. She filed it on October 8, but the amended filing also failed to meet the court's requirements.
The outcome gives BTS and the companies a victory in the Virginia proceeding. A separate copyright lawsuit in California concerning Swim, the title track of BTS's fifth studio album, Arirang, remains unresolved. That case involves different plaintiffs, a specific demo recording and a different list of defendants.
The two proceedings therefore leave the parties in different positions: the Virginia court has entered judgment for BTS and the companies, while HYBE, BIGHIT MUSIC and people involved in creating Swim still face the California allegations. BTS's members are not directly named as defendants in that second lawsuit.
Why the Revised Complaint Was Dismissed
Mais filed her original lawsuit on August 25. Her central allegation was that BTS and the companies had used compositions she had not released publicly. She described herself as the author of the works.
Her filings lacked concrete evidence and musical comparisons identifying how a BTS song had copied her work. She also failed to identify the allegedly infringing song with the specificity needed to support her accusation.
Brinkema's September ruling gave Mais a chance to address those shortcomings. Permission to amend means a plaintiff can rewrite a complaint to supply missing facts or correct legal problems, rather than having the proceeding end immediately after the first unsuccessful filing.
Mais used that opportunity before the deadline. The October 22 decision nevertheless dismissed the amended complaint, and the court entered judgment for the defendants on the same day. The revised filing had not supplied a legally sufficient basis for the case to proceed.
The central issue at this stage was the adequacy of the allegations presented to the court. A complaint must explain a claim in enough factual and legal detail to justify continuing the lawsuit. Repeating an accusation without addressing the missing details leaves the same problem for the judge to consider.
How the Virginia Case Unfolded
The Virginia proceeding moved from the original filing to judgment in less than two months. Its key dates show that Mais received an opportunity to revise her allegations between the first dismissal and the final decision.
- August 25: Mais filed a copyright lawsuit against BTS, HYBE, HYBE America and BIGHIT MUSIC.
- September 18: The court dismissed the original complaint because it did not sufficiently state legally viable claims, but allowed an amendment.
- October 8: Mais submitted an amended complaint, one day before the deadline.
- October 9: The court's deadline for an amended filing was 5 p.m.
- October 22: The court dismissed the amended complaint and entered judgment for the defendants.
Mais had also brought a separate copyright action against dancehall singer Masicka, whose legal name is Javaun Nicholas Fearon, alleging unauthorized use of her compositions. Her specific professional occupation was not identified in the account of the BTS proceeding.
The judgment entered on October 22 resolved the Virginia case at the district court level. The next dispute facing the companies concerns the California lawsuit, where the songwriters have identified both a particular BTS recording and the demo they say it resembles.
What a Copyright Claim Needs to Explain
Copyright protects original creative expression, including music and lyrics. In a song dispute, a plaintiff needs to explain which protected work belongs to them and how the accused recording copied it.
Access and substantial similarity are common parts of that argument. Access concerns whether the people accused of copying had an opportunity to encounter the earlier work. Substantial similarity concerns whether the resemblance involves enough protected musical or lyrical expression to support an infringement claim.
An allegation involving an unreleased song makes the access question especially concrete: the plaintiff needs to explain how the people accused of copying could have encountered it. A musical comparison also needs to identify the passages or features at issue, so the court can understand the claimed connection between the works.
Mais's case encountered problems before it could move into a fuller examination of such evidence. The initial complaint lacked sufficiently pleaded claims, and the revised complaint did not correct the legal deficiencies identified by the court.
The California plaintiffs have taken a different approach in presenting their allegations. They have identified a demo with the same title as Swim and submitted an analysis by a musicologist, a specialist who studies music, to support their claimed similarities.
Three Songwriters Challenge Swim in California
Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler and Greylyn Johnson filed the Swim lawsuit on July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They say BTS's recording contains substantial similarities to a demo of the same name that they completed in March 2025.
The complaint alleges that the songwriters began sending the demo to various parties for consideration in March 2025, including executives at Artist Publishing Group. The plaintiffs claim those executives listened to the demo and shared it with others, including some of the songwriters who eventually worked on Swim.
The songwriters allege similarities in melody, the chorus, harmony, rhythm and lyrics. In everyday terms, their claim concerns the tune, the recurring central section, the way notes sound together, the pattern of beats and the words.
Their musicologist's analysis forms part of the material submitted to support those allegations. The plaintiffs hired Alexander Stewart, whose report is quoted in the complaint. He identified similarities in the title hook, unusual harmonies, textures, and rhythmic and lyrical elements, describing those elements as distinctive individually and unique in combination.
In my expert opinion, independent creation of BTS can be ruled out and copying is the inescapable conclusion.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged copyright infringement and a share of the revenue generated by the song.
HYBE, BIGHIT MUSIC and people involved in producing and writing Swim are named as defendants. The suit also names HYBE America and songwriter Ryan Tedder. BTS's members are not directly included on the defendant list, although the recording at the center of the case was released by the group.
The plaintiffs say they contacted HYBE and the other defendants in an attempt to resolve the dispute before filing. According to the complaint, the defendants either did not respond or were unable to reach a resolution with the songwriters.
No ruling resolving the California allegations or date for the next hearing was given. The requested damages and revenue share therefore remain demands by the plaintiffs, with the dispute still ongoing.
BIGHIT MUSIC Says Swim Was Created Independently
BIGHIT MUSIC, BTS's agency and a defendant in the California case, rejected the songwriters' account. The company described the accusations as claims made by the plaintiffs and said the track had been created independently.
'Swim' was independently created.
The agency also said it planned to respond through legal channels. Its position directly contests the songwriters' allegation that the recording copied their demo.
Independent creation is central to that response. Copyright infringement concerns copying protected expression. A company defending a song on this basis is saying its writers created the work themselves, rather than drawing it from the composition identified by the plaintiffs.
The California dispute now centers on two opposing accounts of how Swim came into existence: the songwriters allege copying and point to their demo and musical analysis, while BIGHIT MUSIC maintains that the song was independently written. The Virginia judgment addressed Mais's complaint against BTS and its associated companies; the California court will handle the claims concerning Swim.
Key Points
- On October 22, a federal court in Virginia dismissed Melissa Mais's amended copyright complaint and entered judgment for BTS, HYBE, HYBE America and BIGHIT MUSIC.
- The court had dismissed her original complaint on September 18 and allowed her to amend it by October 9.
- Mais submitted a revised complaint on October 8, but it also failed to meet the court's legal requirements.
- A separate California lawsuit alleges that Swim resembles a demo completed by three songwriters in March 2025.
- The Swim plaintiffs seek damages and a share of revenue. BTS's members are not directly named as defendants in that case.
- BIGHIT MUSIC says Swim was independently created. The California dispute remains unresolved.
