Blab Music
Sony Music Files Expanded Copyright Suit Against Udio After Judge Rejects 30-K-Track Addition
Sony Music Entertainment launched a new copyright complaint against generative‑AI platform Udio on July 20, 2026, after a federal judge denied the label’s request to add more than 30,000 recordings to an earlier suit. The fresh filing cites discovery from the first case and Udio’s own licensing agreements, seeking damages for the alleged infringement of over 30,000 sound recordings.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who oversaw the original case, ruled in June that adding tens of thousands of works would “considerably prolong the proceedings.” He noted that Sony retains the right to pursue damages for all copyrighted works, but the court did not require the label to include them in the current lawsuit. The decision left Sony free to file a separate action, which it did on July 20.
The updated complaint builds on the discovery phase of the original case, where plaintiffs identified the specific works they claim Udio used without authorization. It also references Udio’s responses to discovery requests and the platform’s licensing deals with major rights holders. According to the complaint, Udio has entered into agreements with a range of record labels to use sound recordings as training data for its generative‑AI models. Those agreements, the suit says, demonstrate that a market exists for licensed use of copyrighted recordings in AI training and that Udio acknowledges the need for permission.
Sony’s lawyers argue that Udio’s use of the recordings is not transformative. The complaint contends that the platform’s output—new audio files that compete with existing works—does not qualify as fair use. It also foregrounds allegations that Udio engaged in “stream‑ripping,” a practice that involves bypassing digital rights management to extract audio from streaming services such as YouTube. The complaint asserts that such activity violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti‑circumvention provisions.
The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle over AI‑generated music. Udio has already secured a licensing agreement with Universal Music Group and a separate deal with Merlin, the independent‑label licensing network, and is preparing to launch a new product in partnership with Warner Music Group and Universal. Meanwhile, Sony and Universal are litigating against rival platform Suno. The industry is watching how these cases will shape the future of AI training data and the licensing of sound recordings.
Sony’s filing does not resolve the underlying questions about fair use or the scope of permissible AI training. However, it signals the label’s willingness to pursue extensive litigation against platforms that it believes have used its catalog without proper authorization. The outcome of this case, along with the Suno litigation, could influence how record labels negotiate licensing terms with AI developers and how courts interpret the balance between copyright protection and technological innovation.
At present, Sony has not announced any settlement talks with Udio, and the court has not set a new hearing date. Udio’s upcoming product launch is scheduled for late 2026, and the platform’s partnership with Warner and Universal is expected to include a licensing framework that addresses the issues raised in the lawsuit. The legal proceedings will likely continue to unfold over the next several months as both sides prepare for trial.
The case underscores the growing tension between major record labels and AI companies that rely on large music libraries for training. Whether the courts will ultimately uphold Sony’s claims or find a broader fair‑use defense remains to be seen, but the litigation will undoubtedly influence licensing practices and the development of generative‑AI music tools.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who oversaw the original case, ruled in June that adding tens of thousands of works would “considerably prolong the proceedings.” He noted that Sony retains the right to pursue damages for all copyrighted works, but the court did not require the label to include them in the current lawsuit. The decision left Sony free to file a separate action, which it did on July 20.
The updated complaint builds on the discovery phase of the original case, where plaintiffs identified the specific works they claim Udio used without authorization. It also references Udio’s responses to discovery requests and the platform’s licensing deals with major rights holders. According to the complaint, Udio has entered into agreements with a range of record labels to use sound recordings as training data for its generative‑AI models. Those agreements, the suit says, demonstrate that a market exists for licensed use of copyrighted recordings in AI training and that Udio acknowledges the need for permission.
Sony’s lawyers argue that Udio’s use of the recordings is not transformative. The complaint contends that the platform’s output—new audio files that compete with existing works—does not qualify as fair use. It also foregrounds allegations that Udio engaged in “stream‑ripping,” a practice that involves bypassing digital rights management to extract audio from streaming services such as YouTube. The complaint asserts that such activity violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti‑circumvention provisions.
The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle over AI‑generated music. Udio has already secured a licensing agreement with Universal Music Group and a separate deal with Merlin, the independent‑label licensing network, and is preparing to launch a new product in partnership with Warner Music Group and Universal. Meanwhile, Sony and Universal are litigating against rival platform Suno. The industry is watching how these cases will shape the future of AI training data and the licensing of sound recordings.
Sony’s filing does not resolve the underlying questions about fair use or the scope of permissible AI training. However, it signals the label’s willingness to pursue extensive litigation against platforms that it believes have used its catalog without proper authorization. The outcome of this case, along with the Suno litigation, could influence how record labels negotiate licensing terms with AI developers and how courts interpret the balance between copyright protection and technological innovation.
At present, Sony has not announced any settlement talks with Udio, and the court has not set a new hearing date. Udio’s upcoming product launch is scheduled for late 2026, and the platform’s partnership with Warner and Universal is expected to include a licensing framework that addresses the issues raised in the lawsuit. The legal proceedings will likely continue to unfold over the next several months as both sides prepare for trial.
The case underscores the growing tension between major record labels and AI companies that rely on large music libraries for training. Whether the courts will ultimately uphold Sony’s claims or find a broader fair‑use defense remains to be seen, but the litigation will undoubtedly influence licensing practices and the development of generative‑AI music tools.
