The intellectual property landscape in the global music industry has reached a crucial tipping point, and this time, it directly involves the world’s biggest musical act. The ongoing battle between independent creators and corporate powerhouses has found a new battleground in the United States legal system, putting the mechanics of pop music creation under intense scrutiny. As global markets expand, these legal confrontations are becoming highly strategic, serving as both protective shields for independent writers and significant hurdles for major entertainment labels.
The latest controversy centers on BTS’s massive chart-topping single “Swim,” the lead track from their fifth studio album, Arirang. What began as a celebratory comeback has quickly transformed into a complex legal dispute, drawing attention from industry insiders, musicologists, and millions of fans worldwide. With millions of dollars in royalties, streaming revenue, and corporate reputations on the line, the case highlights the growing tension over creative ownership in modern pop music.
The Roots of the Dispute: Allegations and Key Players
The legal battle officially began in July 2026, when three independent American songwriters—Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler, and Greylyn Johnson—filed a formal copyright infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs argue that BTS’s global hit “Swim” bears an undeniable resemblance to an unreleased demo track they composed under the exact same title. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs created their original version in early 2025 and finalized the demo by March of that year.
The lawsuit focuses on the concept of corporate access and the transmission of creative assets. The plaintiffs state they aggressively shared their demo with various music industry entities through the music-sharing platform Disco to secure a publishing deal. A key target named in the lawsuit is the independent music label Artist Publishing Group (APG). The plaintiffs allege that APG representatives reviewed their unreleased demo and subsequently shared it with external writers who were later brought in to produce the K-pop anthem.
Who is Named in the Lawsuit?
Rather than targeting the individual members of the K-pop group, the legal complaint focuses heavily on the corporate infrastructure and the Western production team behind the track. The defendants listed in the filing include:
- HYBE & HYBE America: The parent entertainment lifestyle platform managing global operations.
- Big Hit Music: The core subsidiary directly responsible for managing the K-pop group.
- Artist Publishing Group (APG): The publishing entity alleged to have acted as the point of access.
- Western Co-Writers: High-profile producers credited on the track, including Ryan Tedder (frontman of OneRepublic), Derrick Milano, and James Essien.
Notably, while the K-pop group’s leader, RM, is formally credited as a contributing writer on the track, neither he nor any other group member is named as an individual defendant. The legal focus remains strictly on the corporate entities and the Western hitmakers who structured the song’s musical foundation.
The Musicological Argument: Coincidence vs. Copying
To build a compelling case in a federal court, the plaintiffs commissioned an independent audio analysis from Dr. Alexander Stewart, a well-known musicologist. Dr. Stewart’s expert witness report forms the core of the plaintiffs’ argument, asserting that the structural similarities between the two tracks cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence.
In the official court documents, Dr. Stewart concludes that independent creation by the K-pop group’s team can be ruled out, stating that copying is the logical conclusion. The analysis identifies several overlapping artistic elements, including:
- The Title Hook: The repetitive use and placement of the word “Swim” within the main chorus.
- Harmonic Progressions: The utilization of unusual chord changes that deviate from standard pop structures.
- Rhythmic and Lyrical Textures: Shared syncopation patterns and thematic alignment in the vocal delivery.
Interestingly, Dr. Stewart is a familiar figure in high-profile copyright disputes. He previously served as an expert witness in major infringement lawsuits, including those involving Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven.” Because both of those historical cases were ultimately dismissed by the courts, industry analysts suggest that proving clear, actionable copyright theft remains a remarkably difficult task under U.S. copyright law.
Big Hit Music Responds: A Vow for a Robust Defense
HYBE’s music subsidiary, Big Hit Music, quickly issued a definitive public statement to address the growing controversy. The agency completely rejected the plagiarism claims, describing the lawsuit as a completely one-sided narrative constructed entirely by the plaintiffs. The label emphasized that the K-pop track is an entirely independent, original composition created without any knowledge of the plaintiffs’ unreleased demo.
Big Hit Music stated its clear intention to pursue a strong defense through proper legal channels, signaling that they will not seek an early, quiet settlement. Corporate defense strategies in these scenarios usually focus on breaking the chain of access. The defense must prove that the production team in Los Angeles and Seoul developed the melody independently, entirely isolated from the files sent to APG.
The timing of this legal challenge adds extra pressure to the entertainment giant. The lawsuit arrived just as the group was finalizing rehearsals for their highly anticipated halftime performance at the 2026 FIFA World Cup final in North America, scheduled for July 19. With a massive global audience expected to tune in, the agency is working hard to ensure the legal dispute does not overshadow the group’s historic performance alongside artists like Justin Bieber, Madonna, and Shakira.
What is at Stake? Potential Legal and Financial Outcomes
The legal demands outlined by the American songwriters highlight the massive scale of modern streaming mechanics. The plaintiffs are asking the court for a permanent injunction to halt all commercial distribution, streaming, and broadcasting of “Swim.” Given that the song debuted at number one on the Billboard charts and serves as the foundation for the group’s lucrative Arirang world tour, an injunction would cause massive financial damage to HYBE.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs are seeking a full accounting of all profits generated by the single, demanding substantial financial damages and the disgorgement of revenue earned since the album’s release in March 2026. If a full commercial block fails, the songwriters have presented a backup option: they want the court to formally recognize them as co-writers of the track. This outcome would guarantee them a permanent percentage of all future publishing royalties and performance rights, securing long-term wealth from the song’s global success.
Writer’s Opinion
When you look past the standard corporate statements, this lawsuit reveals a truth about how modern pop hits are actually made. Today’s chart-toppers aren’t usually written by a single person in a quiet room; they are assembled like puzzles across global networks, passing through dozens of producers, topliners, and label executives. This crowded creative process makes tracking inspiration incredibly messy, turning the industry into a minefield for accidental similarities. While the expert musicologist calls the copying “escapable,” the reality is that pop music relies on shared tropes, familiar rhythms, and common hooks. Big Hit Music is right to fight this firmly, as settling too easily would set a dangerous precedent, inviting lawsuits for every hit song that shares a common word or chord progression. Ultimately, “Swim” will likely survive this legal hurdle just like Ed Sheeran did before them, but it serves as a strong reminder that in the modern streaming era, defending your song’s originality can be just as difficult as writing a hit in the first place.
