The copyright lawsuit over BTS single Swim was withdrawn on November 4, less than four months after it was filed. The three songwriters who alleged that the track copied their unreleased composition asked to end the case without publicly explaining their decision. No settlement has been confirmed, and the court did not decide whether the musical similarities alleged in the complaint amounted to infringement.
The legal dispute over BTS single Swim has ended with the songwriters who brought the complaint withdrawing their case. Steve Cooper, Jon Sandler and Greylyn Johnson filed the request on November 4, stopping proceedings that had begun in July. The development came before the court had examined the substance of their allegations about the origins of the hit song.
The three plaintiffs claimed that the released recording contained substantial similarities to an unreleased composition of their own, also called Swim. Their complaint, filed on July 8, alleged that material from that earlier song had been used without permission. Those claims were allegations presented by the songwriters, rather than conclusions reached by a judge after considering the competing evidence.
Swim was released in spring 2026 as the lead single from the group's album Arirang. It debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming a major international release before the copyright dispute emerged several months later. The success of the recording formed the commercial backdrop to the complaint, but did not itself establish anything about the plaintiffs' copying allegations.
According to the complaint, Cooper, Sandler and Johnson circulated copies of their unreleased composition to music-industry contacts in March 2025. They said they were seeking opportunities for artists and record-company collaborators to use the song. That account of how the demo was distributed became an important part of their argument about possible access to the material.
The plaintiffs alleged that executives at Artist Publishing Group were among the recipients. They claimed that the material was heard and shared with other people, potentially including writers who later worked on the BTS recording. This proposed route from their demo to the released track remained part of their case; it was not established as fact through a court ruling.
After hearing the released version, the songwriters said they identified extensive similarities between the two compositions. They commissioned a musicological comparison to support their complaint and cited that analysis in the litigation. The conclusions they relied on were evidence advanced on their behalf, rather than an assessment adopted by the court following a hearing on the merits.
The dispute concerned the musical composition itself. A claim that two songs share similarities does not, by itself, settle whether unlawful copying occurred. In this case, the litigation stopped before a judge evaluated the parties' substantive arguments and evidence. The withdrawal therefore cannot be treated as a judicial finding that the allegations about the BTS track were proved.
The members of the group were not personally named as defendants in the lawsuit. The original complaint instead targeted HYBE, companies associated with the group and people involved in creating the song. Ryan Tedder, known for his work with OneRepublic and for writing with major international pop performers, was among the writers named in the case.
Tedder's involvement in the complaint related to his role in the song's creative team. His credits elsewhere include collaborations with Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and Adele. Those professional connections provide background about his career, but the court made no finding that he or another contributor copied material for the BTS single before the plaintiffs decided to end proceedings.
The request to withdraw the entire action was filed while the case was still at an early stage and before HYBE's lawyers had submitted a formal answer to the original complaint. The November 4 filing ended that particular confrontation without producing a decision about which side's account of the song's creation was correct. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs are not barred by this dismissal from bringing the same claims again. It does not amount to a permanent ruling against the allegations themselves.
Why the songwriters chose to withdraw remains unexplained publicly. The available filings do not establish whether a financial agreement, another form of arrangement or an entirely different consideration preceded their decision. Neither side had immediately provided a public explanation when the development was reported. It would therefore be speculative to describe a private settlement as a confirmed part of the outcome.
For the same reason, ending the case should not be presented as a court clearing HYBE or the songwriters of the allegations after a trial. There was no decision on the substance of the copying claim. The confirmed development is that the plaintiffs chose to stop the action they had initiated over the BTS recording in July.
The Swim case is separate from another copyright dispute involving the group in which a court issued a ruling on October 22. The two proceedings involved different claims and reached their outcomes through different processes. A decision in that other matter does not explain the withdrawal here or supply a judgment on whether this song infringed another composition.
Music-industry lawsuits sometimes end before a full examination in court, but another case's outcome cannot reveal the reasons behind this one. Swim remains part of the recent BTS catalog and a Billboard Hot 100 number one. The latest legal development is the November 4 withdrawal, with the plaintiffs' reasoning and any potential private arrangements still undisclosed.
