Suno recently released v6 of its AI music generation models, marking a new beginning for the platform and a step out of the shadows of its legally murky past.
Well, that was the plan.
The trouble is, the company faced new lawsuits from Sony and UMG barely a week after releasing Suno v6.
I’m almost certain these latest lawsuits come as no surprise to anyone, but the outcomes could have serious ramifications for Suno and similar platforms.
AI in music affects all of us in one way or another, whether we love it or hate it, so let’s look at the story so far.
What is Suno?
Suno is an AI music generation platform offering both free and paid subscription tiers.
The platform offers multimodal generation that Suno describes as: “Create original music using text prompts, audio uploads, voice memos, images, or video as direct inspiration.”
I think the lawsuits (current and historic) give some reason to question the intended meaning of “original music,” but that’s for the courts to decide.
Anyway, Suno also offers targeted editing and services like stem separation.
In short, Suno turns things that aren’t music into music or uses existing music as inspiration to create similar music.
What’s the problem?
When it comes to copyright lawsuits, this isn’t Suno’s first rodeo.
Suno has faced lawsuits from major record labels, independent music publishers, rights-collecting societies, and artists/songwriters/rightsholders throughout its entire lifespan (just about).
So, before we get into the latest drama, here’s a brief description of the primary copyright issue.
Although some lawsuits and complaints are framed differently, the main complaint stems from how Suno trains its AI models.
The lawsuits typically allege that Suno used copyrighted works to train its AI models without authorisation, and did so at an unfathomable scale.
Complaints vary slightly, and I’ll detail some below, but the general theme is using copyrighted material for training purposes without permission and creating new “original works” as a result.
Suno v6: A new dawn or Groundhog Day?
Suno released v6 on September 9, 2026, and faced new legal challenges by September 18.
The latest copyright lawsuit comes from Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group.
Both Sony and UMG were part of a large-scale lawsuit spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2024.
Warner Music Group was also part of this massive 2024 lawsuit, but withdrew after settling with Suno in November 2025.
Suno clearly intended v6 to be the launchpad to bigger and better things with no more talk of copyright infringement.
But it’s not that straightforward.
Suno’s current legal issues aren’t just the 2024 lawsuit still looming in the background, nor are they an extension of the previous action.
Suno v6 has earned itself a separate 45-page lawsuit from Sony and UMG, again citing large-scale copyright infringement of protected works.
The new lawsuit names 60,202 sound recordings, although it suggests the infringement goes way beyond that number.
The lawsuit also seeks up to $9 billion in statutory damages.
While that figure may seem excessive compared with the number of works named, how the courts allow generative AI projects to use copyrighted works has serious implications for all current and future music makers, whether directly involved in this claim or not.
Why a new lawsuit?
The new lawsuit responds directly to Suno v6.
With v6, Suno aimed to present an unquestionably legitimate prospect built around strategic licensing partnerships.
However, a statement from Suno co-founder and CEO on v6 launch day was questionably vague about AI model training methods/data. Instead, the CEO focused on moving forward with proper licensing partners in place.
Suno press material around v6 also states that all previous generations of Suno models have been retired and replaced. I’m no AI expert, but it’s fair to assume “retired and replaced” means brand-new models with brand-new training, and completely disconnected from previous models with copyright issues.
In fact, on launch day (September 9), Suno’s Chief Product Officer, Jack Brody, said the models were trained “entirely from scratch, from the ground up.”
Around the time of the new lawsuit, Suno began to shift its position slightly.
Statements about training that previously focused on data licensed from partners and user preferences now mentioned user “interactions, including creations.”
At the very least, presenting an augmented version of the proposition you offered on launch day is a terrible look for Suno.
Now, Sony and UMG allege that these user interactions and preference signals come from previous models Suno trained on unlicensed copyrighted material.
As such, the legal claim suggests that “v6 is not a fresh start; it is the fruit of the same poisoned tree.”
A secondary complaint alleges that Suno used model-transfer techniques that caused v6 models to inherit capabilities from previous models.
Licensing Partners and legitimacy
I mentioned Suno’s focus on licensing partners during the launch of v6, and those partners are heavy-hitters.
- Warner Music Group
- BMG
- Believe and TuneCore
From a purely legal standpoint, these partnerships are a must.
The partnership with Warner Music Group is why the major record label left the 2024 lawsuit against Suno.
From a musician’s standpoint, I still struggle with the legitimacy of AI-generated music, no matter what partners are involved.
In response to complaints about how Suno handles artist name prompts, the company said:
“When someone asks for a particular artist, we translate that into the musical qualities behind the request – not so that a user can imitate someone else’s work, but so that people learn the language of music and make something of their own.”
I find this statement a little strange. When someone prompts with an artist’s name, I assume they want the prompt to lead to something resembling that artist’s musical qualities.
Suno seems to suggest that to “translate” that prompt into the musical qualities behind the request is to somehow limit the scope for imitation, when in reality it’s exactly what the user wants.
A statement taken from the Lightspeed Venture Partners (one of Suno’s financial backers) website reads: “We break barriers between you and the song you dream of making. No instrument needed.”
I also struggle to see how letting users generate specific musical qualities through artist-name prompts and using the phrase “no instrument needed” as marketing jargon helps people learn the language of music.
What have we learned besides how to spell Justin Bebo?
I mean Justin Beiben, Beebage? Whatever, you know what I’m talking about.
The GEMA case
As I said earlier, this isn’t Suno’s first rodeo, but I want to highlight one lawsuit in particular.
GEMA is Germany’s collection society and performing rights organisation. The organisation manages musical copyrights and collects royalties for its members.
GEMA won a copyright lawsuit against Suno in July of this year.
A court in Munich, Germany, ruled that Suno illegally trained AI models on GEMA members’ copyrighted works without a license or payment of applicable fees.
As a result, Suno was ordered to pay an undisclosed amount in damages, although it still disputes the court’s finding and could potentially appeal.
Suno’s dispute references a “mischaracterization” of how Suno technology works.
GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüller said, “Today, the Chamber made one thing crystal clear: AI models built on stolen intellectual property have no protection under the law.”
The win, though only one step in the journey, is significant because it sets a precedent for all AI platforms and shows that organisations representing musicians’ rights will have a voice in the argument.
GEMA also won a lawsuit against OpenAI over the tech giant’s use of copyrighted lyrics to train ChatGPT.
Suno timeline
- 2022 – Suno was founded by Michael Shulman, Georg Kucsko, Martin Camacho, and Keenan Freyberg.
- July 2023 – Suno launched on Discord.
- December 2023 – Web app launched and Microsoft Copilot integration.
- June 2024 – RIAA major-label lawsuit (Sony, UMG, Warner)
- January 2025 – GEMA lawsuit
- September 2025 – SOCAN lawsuit
- August 2026 – Red Hill Music lawsuit
- August 31st 2026 – Gerencia 360 Music lawsuit
- September 9th 2026 – Suno v6 launches
- September 18th 2026 – Sony/UMG file a second lawsuit
Additionally, some artists have filed class-action lawsuits against Suno regarding unauthorised use of artist identities and styles.
Final thoughts
I try my best to focus on positive elements of everything we cover at BPB, and that’s generally not very difficult.
When it comes to AI in music, it’s a different story; it’s such a divisive issue that just covering it is often a lose/lose scenario.
But it’s here, and while it’s here, it’s up for discussion.
I approach AI-related products the same way I do others; I try to highlight the positives among any potential shortfalls.
I’ll spare you a full recount of my views on AI in music, since I’ve expressed them often enough.
In short, I don’t like AI in music, and I’d happily return to a time before it existed, but I don’t assume all things AI are bad.
AI can help us and enhance how we already work, and that’s good.
AI can do the work for us and tell us we’re learning, and that’s bad.
I can’t see anything positive in text-to-music generative AI platforms. Making music is meant to be a joyful/emotional process; what’s the point without that?
I’m sorry, Suno fans, if I thought their AI models infringed a copyrighted work of mine, I’d have Jackie Chiles on their case, so fast.
And if you don’t know who Jackie Chiles is, please watch Seinfeld; you’ll be glad you did.
More info: Suno v6 (Free/Pro/Premium tiers)
More:
