What This Bill Does
The Protect Working Musicians Act of 2026 would let certain independent music creator owners collectively negotiate licensing terms with dominant online music distribution platforms without being treated as violating antitrust laws. It also extends that safe harbor to collective refusals to license music, so long as the negotiations meet the bill’s conditions. The bill defines covered platforms by revenue and service type, and it also applies to companies developing or deploying generative artificial intelligence. It is aimed at independent musicians, producers, mixers, and sound engineers who own the copyrights to their recordings and have limited licensing revenue or qualify as small businesses.
- Creates an antitrust safe harbor for collective negotiation by independent music creator owners.
- Applies only to creators with under $1,000,000 in prior-year licensing revenue or qualifying small businesses.
- Covers dominant platforms with more than $100 million in annual music-distribution revenue.
- Also covers companies developing or deploying generative artificial intelligence.
- Does not otherwise change the antitrust laws outside this bill’s narrow protections.
Who This Bill Affects
For independent musicians and other small rights holders, this bill would make it easier to negotiate as a group with large streaming or music-distribution platforms, instead of facing those companies alone. If you are an individual creator owner with under $1,000,000 in annual licensing revenue, or a qualifying small business under NAICS 512250, the bill could reduce antitrust risk when you coordinate with similarly situated creators over licensing terms. For listeners, the bill could indirectly affect what music is available on major platforms if creators use the new safe harbor to refuse licenses collectively.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Independent musicians and self-managed rights holders They could bargain collectively instead of being forced to accept take-it-or-leave-it terms from large platforms. Supporters would say this helps small creators recover some leverage in a market where one artist’s catalog often does not matter much to a dominant platform.
- Small music producers, mixers, and sound engineers who own copyrights These creators often lack the legal and financial resources to negotiate individually. The bill gives them a lawful way to coordinate on licensing terms and resist below-market offers.
- Advocates for competition in digital markets Supporters may see the bill as a targeted correction to platform power rather than a broad antitrust rollback. The bill keeps the safe harbor limited by creator eligibility, platform revenue thresholds, and conditions on the negotiations.
- Large streaming and online music platforms They may argue the bill would make licensing negotiations more complex and could lead to higher content costs or fragmented access to music. Platforms may also object that collective refusals could pressure them into less flexible deals.
- Some antitrust lawyers and competition-policy purists They may worry that even a narrow exemption weakens antitrust enforcement and invites similar carveouts in other industries. Their concern would be that Congress is authorizing coordination that would otherwise be treated as collusive behavior.
- Companies developing or deploying generative artificial intelligence AI firms could oppose being included in the same bargaining framework as dominant music platforms. They may argue the bill could increase licensing demands or create uncertainty about what uses of music-related data require negotiation.
Key Implications
-
““shall not be held liable under the antitrust laws””
This is the bill’s central protection: covered creators can coordinate on licensing negotiations without antitrust liability, but only within the bill’s limits. In practice, it lowers legal risk for collective bargaining among qualifying independent rights holders.
-
““collectively refuse to license their music””
The bill does not just protect negotiation; it also protects coordinated refusal to license. That gives creators leverage, because a group can withhold music from a platform or AI company if negotiations fail, subject to the bill’s conditions.
-
““annual revenues related to the distribution of music of more than $100 million””
This threshold defines which platforms are covered. Smaller services below that revenue level would not fall within the bill’s definition of a dominant platform, so the safe harbor is aimed at the largest players.
-
““earned less than $1,000,000 in licensing revenues””
This eligibility test limits the safe harbor to smaller-scale creators and rights holders. A creator above that revenue level would not qualify under this prong, even if they are still independent.
-
““company engaged in development or deployment of generative artificial intelligence””
The bill extends beyond streaming platforms to AI companies. That means collective bargaining protections could apply when independent creators negotiate over music use in AI-related products or services.
Latest Status
May 21, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Will It Pass?
14% estimated chance of becoming law
The bill was introduced in the House on May 21, 2026, by Rep. Ross with two cosponsors, and it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. That means it is at the committee stage in the House, with no floor action described in the text provided. The bill’s subject matter sits at the intersection of antitrust, copyright licensing, and digital platform regulation, so it is likely to draw interest from music-industry stakeholders, platform companies, and antitrust-focused lawmakers.
Pass percentages are model estimates and may be inaccurate.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.