What This Bill Does
The Protect Working Musicians Act of 2026 would let certain independent music creators collectively negotiate licensing terms with large online music platforms without being treated as antitrust violators. It also extends that protection to collective refusals to license music to dominant platforms and to companies developing or deploying generative artificial intelligence, as long as the bill’s conditions are met. The bill targets independent creators who own their copyrights and earn under $1 million a year in licensing revenue, or who qualify as small businesses under specified NAICS codes. Its core mechanism is a legal safe harbor, not a direct payment or grant program.
- Creates an antitrust safe harbor for collective negotiations by independent music creator owners.
- Applies only to creators with under $1,000,000 in prior-year licensing revenue or qualifying small businesses.
- Defines a dominant platform as an online music service with more than $100 million in annual music-distribution revenue.
- Allows collective refusals to license music to dominant platforms and generative AI companies.
- Says the bill does not otherwise modify or supersede the antitrust laws.
Who This Bill Affects
For independent musicians, songwriters, and small music-rights owners, this bill could make it easier to negotiate better licensing terms with large streaming and distribution platforms by letting them act together without antitrust exposure. If you are a creator who owns your copyrights and fits the bill’s revenue or small-business thresholds, the measure could also let you collectively refuse licenses to dominant platforms or to generative AI companies under the bill’s conditions. For listeners and the broader public, the main effect would likely be indirect: it could change how music is priced, licensed, and made available online.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Independent musicians and songwriters They could bargain as a group instead of as isolated individuals facing much larger platforms. Supporters would say this is the only practical way to get licensing terms that better reflect market value and reduce the leverage imbalance described in the findings.
- Small music-rights businesses and self-managed creators Creators who own their copyrights but lack major-label resources may see the bill as a way to avoid being forced into take-it-or-leave-it deals. The revenue cap and small-business criteria are designed to focus the protection on smaller rights holders rather than large incumbents.
- Some copyright and creator advocates They may argue that the current notice-and-takedown system places too much burden on rights holders while dominant platforms benefit from unlicensed uploads. A limited antitrust safe harbor could be seen as restoring bargaining power without creating a general exemption.
- Large online music platforms Platforms may argue that collective bargaining by rights holders could raise licensing costs, reduce flexibility, and lead to more fragmented or expensive access to music. They may also object to the bill’s inclusion of collective refusals to license, which could pressure platforms to accept higher rates.
- Antitrust and competition policy critics They may worry that the bill creates a special carveout from antitrust rules and could encourage coordinated behavior that resembles cartel activity, even if limited to creators. Critics could also question whether the bill’s definitions are clear enough to prevent disputes over who qualifies.
- Some technology companies developing generative AI Because the bill explicitly mentions companies engaged in development or deployment of generative artificial intelligence, these firms may fear coordinated licensing refusals could make training or distribution agreements harder to secure. They may argue that the provision could complicate access to copyrighted music for AI-related uses.
Key Implications
-
““shall not be held liable under the antitrust laws””
This is the bill’s central protection. It means qualifying independent creators could coordinate on licensing negotiations without automatically triggering federal or state antitrust penalties for that coordination.
-
““collectively refuse to license their music””
The bill does more than allow joint bargaining; it also protects coordinated refusals to license. In practice, that gives creators leverage by letting them act together if a platform will not meet their terms.
-
““has annual revenues related to the distribution of music of more than $100 million””
This threshold defines which platforms count as dominant for the bill’s safe harbor. The effect is to focus the measure on large services rather than small or emerging music apps.
-
““earned less than $1,000,000 in licensing revenues””
This revenue cap limits the protection to smaller rights holders. Creators above that threshold would not fit the bill’s definition of an Individual Music Creator Owner and would not receive the same antitrust safe harbor.
-
““does not otherwise modify, impair, or supersede the operation of the antitrust laws””
The bill is framed as a narrow exception, not a wholesale rewrite of competition law. That means disputes would likely center on whether a particular group or negotiation fits the bill’s conditions.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.