Why RIAA is suing Suno and Udio (and what it means).

Who is suing whom

• Plaintiffs: Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group (UMG), and Warner Music Group, coordinated by RIAA.
• Defendants: Suno, Inc. (Cambridge, MA) and Uncharted Labs, Inc. (the company behind Udio).
• Courts: District of Massachusetts (Suno), Southern District of New York (Udio).
• Filed: June 24, 2024.

What the labels are claiming

The complaints are clean. The labels argue:

1. Suno and Udio trained their AI music models on copyrighted recordings.
2. That training required copying the recordings, which is reserved to the copyright holder.
3. The defendants did not obtain licenses.
4. Therefore: direct copyright infringement.

To support the training-data claim, the complaints include exhibits where the labels prompted Suno and Udio for songs in the style of well-known copyrighted works and got back outputs that closely resembled the originals. The labels argue these outputs prove the underlying training data was the labels' catalog.

What Suno and Udio are arguing

Both companies invoke fair use. Specifically:

• Using copyrighted works for training is a transformative use, similar to how Google scanned books for Google Books.
• The AI outputs do not reproduce specific training songs (the model generates new audio).
• A ruling against them would freeze AI music innovation in the U.S.

Suno has been more public about its defense. In an August 2024 filing, the company conceded that some of its training data is "essentially the open internet's collection of music recordings" and argued this is the only practical way to build a competitive model.

Where the cases stand in 2026

Settlement is possible at any stage. Some industry observers expect a settlement that includes licensing payments to the labels and forward-looking license agreements for future training. Other observers expect at least one case to go to trial because the legal question (is training fair use?) needs resolution for the broader AI industry, not just music.

What happens if the labels win

Three likely effects, in order of certainty:

1. AI music companies will license training data going forward. Building a generator without label deals will become non-viable.
2. Existing AI music generators will pay damages. Suno and Udio could owe meaningful sums to the major labels.
3. The licensing market will shift toward larger players. Smaller AI music companies that can't afford label licenses may exit the market or pivot.

What happens if the labels lose

If fair use wins:

• AI music training stays effectively unregulated.
• The pace of model improvement accelerates.
• The label-vs-AI fight moves to other fronts (voice cloning, output similarity).
• U.S. policy probably gets revisited via Congress within a few years.

What this means for Boulevard

Boulevard is the AI alternative to Spotify. We do not generate music using third-party AI models that are under active litigation. Our generation and screening pipeline is built around the principle that every song shipped to listeners is reviewed by a human before release. Our exposure to the outcome of RIAA v. Suno and RIAA v. Udio is limited but real. If the case reshapes training data norms, we'll comply with the resulting norms. We've always known the legal landscape was unsettled.

Other cases worth watching

• Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (2023). Songwriting / lyrics-training case. Not music audio, but a related theory.
• State right-of-publicity expansion. Tennessee's ELVIS Act (2024) and copies in California, New York, Illinois.
• EU AI Act (2024). Imposes training-data disclosure requirements that the U.S. is watching.

For the listener's view of what AI music is allowed to do, see our copyright explainer.

Frequently asked questions