AI Music Generators and the Lawsuits, Explained
What Was Filed, Settled and Still Open

AI music generators such as Suno and Udio can produce a full song from a text prompt. In 2024 the major record labels took both companies to court. Since then some labels have settled and signed licensing deals, other claims are still being fought, and new cases have started in the US, in Europe and in Canada.

This page sets out what happened, in order, using the court filings and the companies’ own announcements. It is an explainer, not legal advice. A complaint contains allegations, an answer contains a company’s position, and only orders and judgments are the court’s own words. Court records were read on 25 September 2026; the online docket service used warns that its copies “may not be up to date”.

The short version

Case	Where	Filed	Status (25 Sep 2026)
Record labels v. Suno	US federal court, Massachusetts	24 June 2024	Open; Warner settled
Record labels v. Udio	US federal court, New York	24 June 2024	Open for Sony; Universal and Warner settled
Sony and affiliated labels v. Udio (second case)	US federal court, New York	20 July 2026	Open
Universal, Sony and affiliated labels v. Suno (second case)	US federal court, Massachusetts	18 September 2026	Open
GEMA v. Suno	Munich Regional Court, Germany	21 January 2025	GEMA largely won at first instance; not final
Koda v. Suno	Copenhagen City Court, Denmark	4 November 2025	No later update found
SOCAN v. Suno	Federal Court of Canada	2 September 2026	Filed; no later update found

1. The 2024 lawsuits

On 24 June 2024 the Recording Industry Association of America announced two suits brought by record companies: one against Suno, “filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts”, and one against Udio (the company is called Uncharted Labs) in New York. The plaintiffs were labels belonging to Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music Group.

The complaints allege that the services copied the labels’ recordings to train their AI models. The Suno complaint opens its case this way: “There is nothing that exempts AI technology from copyright law or that excuses AI companies from playing by the rules.”

Both complaints ask for damages “including in an amount up to $150,000 per work infringed”. That is the most US law allows in statutory damages per work, and only where a court finds the infringement was wilful; otherwise the limit is $30,000. The complaints do not state a total, and no US court has awarded anything.

2. What Suno and Udio said

Both companies filed their answers on 1 August 2024, and both argue that what they did is fair use under US copyright law.

• Suno said its program “was constructed by showing the program tens of millions of instances of different kinds of recordings”, and that those recordings “presumably included” recordings owned by the labels. That is a statement about training data, not an admission of infringement. Suno’s answer adds: “But what the major record labels really don’t want is competition.” In a blog post the same day, Suno wrote: “learning is not infringing. It never has been, and it is not now.”
• Udio said it “will prevail in this litigation because decades of judicial precedent establishes that no company controls a genre or style of music”, and called its use “a quintessential “fair use” under copyright law”.

3. The YouTube question

During the cases, a second issue emerged: where the training audio came from.

Both companies now say in their court filings that they took audio from YouTube. Suno’s 2026 answer states: “Suno further admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data.” Udio’s says: “Udio admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data”.

The labels argue this broke a separate law against getting around technical protections. The Suno court described what the labels learned in discovery: “plaintiffs learned that Suno obtained the recordings by downloading them from YouTube.” The labels’ amended complaint calls it “stream ripping”.

The US courts have allowed those claims to go ahead, but that is not a finding that anyone broke the law. In the Udio case, the judge wrote that whether YouTube’s measures count as protections under the law “requires a greater factual record than the pleadings contain”. In the Suno case, the court found the labels had made “a plausible claim” and let them add it.

4. The settlements and licensing deals

Universal Music Group and Udio announced on 29 October 2025 that they had “settled copyright infringement litigation” and would launch a new platform “trained on authorized and licensed music”. The same day Udio told its users: “Starting today, downloads from the platform will be unavailable”.

Warner Music Group and Udio announced on 19 November 2025 a deal that “resolves the companies’ copyright infringement litigation”. Udio added that the labels did not buy the company: “Did the labels buy Udio / do they own Udio? No, they did not.”

Warner Music Group and Suno announced on 25 November 2025 a partnership that “also settles previous litigation between the companies”. Warner said that when Suno’s new licensed models launch, “the current models will be deprecated”, that “songs made on the free tier will not be downloadable”, and that “Suno has also acquired Songkick”, the concert-discovery service.

None of the settlements disclosed their financial terms.

Suno has since announced a partnership with the music company BMG (12 August 2026) and, on 9 September 2026, its v6 models, “developed with our industry partners, including Warner Music Group, BMG and Believe”. Suno’s announcement does not say whether v6 was trained only on licensed music. Universal and Sony’s second suit (section 5) alleges that Suno developed v6 using their recordings.

We found no announced deal between Sony Music and either company.

5. What is still open

Universal, Capitol and Sony v. Suno. Warner’s claims were dismissed after its deal. The remaining labels filed an amended complaint on 25 August 2026, and Suno answered on 1 September 2026, again arguing fair use: “This is quintessential fair use.” On 18 August 2026 the judge denied, without prejudice, a request to add 61,026 more recordings to this case, noting that fact discovery had been extended to “September 30, 2026”. The judge also wrote that summary judgment on Suno’s fair use defence “will likely resolve the predominant issue” in the case. On 22 September 2026 the judge granted a joint request to extend discovery on the labels’ claim about getting around YouTube’s protections (section 3) to 20 November 2026; the amended schedule lists 22 June 2027 for dispositive motions.

Universal, Sony and affiliated labels v. Suno (a second case). On 18 September 2026 the labels filed a new suit in the same court over “60,202 sound recordings”, describing it as “the second action” against Suno. The complaint alleges that the infringement continues in Suno’s v6 models: “On information and belief, Suno developed v6 using Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings”. Suno had not answered when the docket was read.

Sony v. Udio (the original case). After Universal and Warner settled, the court noted that “the number of Plaintiffs has been reduced from 12 to 3, and the number of works at issue from 1,670 to 333.” The court also refused to add about 30,000 more recordings, saying “there is no requirement that it be done in this lawsuit.”

Sony v. Udio (a second case). Sony and affiliated labels then filed a new suit on 20 July 2026 over “30,117 sound recordings”. Udio answered on 27 August 2026: “This is quintessential fair use.” (The earlier court order had described Sony’s proposal as “adding 30,442 works”; the documents do not explain the difference.)

Independent artists, publishers and others have also filed separate suits against Suno or Udio since 2025. We have not read those complaints, so we do not describe them here.

6. Outside the US

Germany: GEMA v. Suno. GEMA, the German music-rights society, sued Suno in Munich on 21 January 2025. On 31 July 2026 the court “largely granted” (überwiegend stattgegeben) GEMA’s claims for an injunction, information and damages over six well-known songs (for one, only its chorus). The claims covered copies made during training in the US as well as the model and its outputs in Germany. Applying US law to the training copies, the court found they were not covered by fair use, because the works reappeared in the outputs (nicht von der fair use Doktrin nach 17 U.S.C. § 107 gedeckt). The court’s press office noted that the case did not cover song lyrics, and that “The judgment is not final” (Das Urteil ist nicht rechtskräftig).

Germany: GEMA v. OpenAI. The same Munich court ruled on 11 November 2025 in a separate case about song lyrics reproduced by a chatbot, largely in GEMA’s favour. That case is about lyrics, not an AI music generator. According to GEMA, OpenAI has appealed to the Higher Regional Court in Munich (Oberlandesgericht München).

Denmark: Koda v. Suno. Koda, the Danish music-rights society, filed suit against Suno on 4 November 2025, describing it as “the first time a Danish rights organization has filed a lawsuit against an AI service.” We found no later ruling.

Canada: SOCAN v. Suno. SOCAN, Canada’s largest member-owned music rights organization, filed a statement of claim against Suno in the Federal Court of Canada on 2 September 2026. According to SOCAN, the claim alleges that by making the platform available in Canada and generating and streaming outputs that replicate songs in its repertoire, “Suno has infringed SOCAN’s performing rights in the underlying songs”, and it lists “a sample of 150 publicly available Suno outputs”.

7. The US Copyright Office’s view

On 9 May 2025 the US Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of a report on generative AI training. It concluded that “Various uses of copyrighted works in AI training are likely to be transformative”, but that “making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.”

The report is the Office’s view. It does not bind the courts, and it does not analyse or decide these cases (it cites the Suno complaint once, in a footnote).

8. What the terms say for users now

Suno (terms effective 3 September 2026): for paid plans, Suno “assigns to you all of its right, title and interest” in outputs it owns, but “makes no representation or warranty to you that any copyright will vest in any Output.” Free-tier users may use outputs only “for your lawful, personal and non-commercial purposes”. Suno’s policy post lists “Free: Up to 7 (lifetime) trial downloads”, “Pro: 20 downloads per month” and “Premier: 60 downloads per month”.

Udio (terms last revised 12 November 2025): “You may not download copies of any Output”, and “you may use Output solely for your personal and non-commercial purposes”. Udio’s terms say the company and its licensors own the output.

Terms change. If you use either service, read the current terms on its own site.

What to watch

• A summary-judgment ruling on fair use in the Suno case, which the judge said “will likely resolve the predominant issue” in the case.
• The next hearing in the original Udio case, a status conference set for 23 October 2026.
• Suno’s response to the labels’ second suit and to SOCAN’s claim in Canada.
• Whether Udio launches the licensed platform it announced for 2026, and whether Sony reaches a deal.
• Whether Suno appeals the Munich judgment, and the outcome of OpenAI’s appeal in the lyrics case.

Sources

• RIAA, announcement of the Suno and Udio suits (24 June 2024).
• UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:24-cv-11611: complaint; Suno’s answers (1 August 2024; 1 September 2026); orders of 18 August 2026 and 22 September 2026; amended complaint (25 August 2026). Via CourtListener.
• UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (now Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs), S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777: complaint; Udio’s answers (1 August 2024; 29 April 2026); orders of April, 29 June and 24 August 2026.
• Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-06120: complaint (20 July 2026); answer (27 August 2026).
• UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14275: complaint (18 September 2026).
• Suno, “The Future of Music” (1 August 2024); WMG partnership (25 November 2025); BMG partnership (12 August 2026); “Introducing v6” (9 September 2026); terms of service (effective 3 September 2026) and policy update (August 2026).
• Universal Music Group and Udio (29 October 2025); Warner Music Group and Udio (19 November 2025); Warner Music Group and Suno (25 November 2025), press releases. Udio blog posts (29 October and 19 November 2025); Udio terms of service.
• Landgericht München I, press releases no. 11 (11 November 2025) and no. 16 (31 July 2026); GEMA (31 July 2026).
• Koda, “Koda sues US tech company Suno” (4 November 2025).
• SOCAN, announcement of its lawsuit against Suno (2 September 2026) and statement of claim, Federal Court of Canada file T-3803-26.
• US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training, pre-publication version (9 May 2025).

Checked September 2026.

Related: AI myths checked · Open-weight is not open-source