UMG Recordings Inc v Suno Inc (2026)
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Universal and Sony record-label plaintiffs filed this second action against Suno and John Does 1–10 on September 18, 2026, asserting claims involving 60,202 sound recordings. The case has a separate docket from the 2024 Suno action.[1]
Suno filed its answer on October 20, 2026, acknowledging that it had retained some training recordings while contesting infringement and asserting affirmative defenses, including fair use. These positions are party pleadings, not a decision on the legality of its models or training practices.[2]
Allegations and requested relief
The complaint alleges unauthorized copying for AI training and circumvention of YouTube access controls. It seeks damages and injunctive relief for post-1972 and pre-1972 recordings and the alleged circumvention.[1]
Music Business Worldwide reports that the new suit follows the refusal to add additional recordings to the earlier case and also contests the provenance of Suno’s v6 models.[5]
October 20, 2026 answer
In responses 49, 53, 62–63, 113 and 121, Suno acknowledges that it has not deleted all sound recordings used to train its AI models. It says this is consistent with the plaintiffs’ prelitigation demand to preserve training datasets. That explanation does not itself establish that retention is lawful or resolve the disputed allegations about continuing use and v6’s provenance.[2]
Suno repeats its description of v6’s training inputs as licensed partner content, community interactions and preference signals, and accumulated technical learning. It acknowledges maintaining some data about user-generated outputs and preference signals, while denying that every model used the same recording corpus. It also acknowledges allowing artist-name prompts since January 2026, but says names are converted to style descriptions before outputs are generated.[2]
The answer disputes the plaintiffs’ claims and entitlement to relief. Its affirmative defenses include fair use, copyright misuse, express or implied licensing, and challenges to standing on the anti-circumvention claims. It asks for judgment for Suno, dismissal with prejudice, and fees and costs where permitted. These are requested outcomes and defenses, rather than relief granted by the court.[2]
October 30, 2026 motion to stay
Suno moved to pause this action until summary judgment is resolved in the 2024 lawsuit, No. 24-cv-11611. Its motion certifies that the plaintiffs oppose the request.[4]
Suno argues that the cases share copyright and YouTube anti-circumvention theories, and that rulings on fair use and access controls in the first case could resolve or narrow issues and avoid duplicative discovery in the second. It also argues that a stay would not prejudice the labels. These are Suno’s arguments for a stay; the motion and memorandum do not establish that a stay was granted or that the court decided fair use.[6]
Related coverage
- November 1 news: Suno’s October 30 request to pause this case
- 2024 action
- October 23, 2026 news coverage
- September 19, 2026 digest
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 UMG Recordings Inc. et al. v. Suno Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14275 (D. Mass.), ECF 1, filed September 18, 2026, pp. 1–2, 39–45.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Suno, answer to complaint, No. 1:26-cv-14275-FDS, ECF 11, filed October 20, 2026, pp. 1–44, especially responses 8, 49, 53, 62–63, 113 and 121 and affirmative defenses (court filing reproduced by Music Business Worldwide).
- ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, electronic notice of case assignment, ECF 4, September 18, 2026, reproduced in Justia docket listing.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Suno, motion to stay, No. 1:26-cv-14275-FDS, ECF 30, filed October 30, 2026, pp. 1–3.
- ↑ Music Business Worldwide, “Universal and Sony sue Suno for a second time,” September 18, 2026.
- ↑ Suno, memorandum supporting motion to stay, ECF 31, filed October 30, 2026, pp. 1–11.