UMG and Sony Move to Add Over 61,000 Recordings to Suno AI Lawsuit

UMG and Sony seek to add over 61k recordings to Suno lawsuit after discovery reveals AI trained on ‘millions’ of their copyrighted tracks

May 26, 2026 By Mandy Dalugdug

Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment have asked a federal court for permission to add more than 61,000 copyrighted sound recordings to their copyright infringement lawsuit against AI music generator Suno .

The motion, filed on Thursday (May 21) in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts , which you can read here, comes after the record companies used audio fingerprinting technology to identify their recordings within Suno’s training data.

The original complaint, filed in June 2024 , asserted 560 copyrighted works.

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV , who is presiding over the case, would need to grant the motion before the additional works are added to the lawsuit.

Suno opposes the request, according to the plaintiffs’ filing.

According to the plaintiffs’ memorandum of law supporting the motion, which you can read here , discovery revealed that Suno used “millions” of their copyrighted sound recordings to train its AI models.

The labels say they are asserting “only a small fraction” of those recordings, 61,026 works, in the proposed second amended complaint.

In its original answer to the complaint, Suno admitted that “the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case.”

But, according to the labels’ filing, Suno “continued to refuse to identify the sound recordings it had used to train.”

The record companies say they were “forced to undertake a costly and burdensome review of Suno’s voluminous training data” because Suno “declined to offer any transparency outside of the discovery process.”

To identify their works within the training data, the plaintiffs used Audible Magic , an industry-standard audio fingerprinting technology.

The process required a two-stage procedure.

In Stage 1 , the plaintiffs’ experts created digital fingerprints of each audio file in Suno ‘s training data – a process that required two trips to a secure room at Suno’s outside counsel’s office, totaling two full weeks of work.

In Stage 2 , those fingerprints were transmitted to Audible Magic to check for matches against its content-recognition database.

The filing describes protracted disputes between the parties over the use of Audible Magic .

Suno initially agreed to permit Stage 1 of the analysis in June 2025 , according to the filing, but then rescinded its consent on July 8, 2025 , citing unresolved disputes over Stage 2.

The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Paul Levenson on July 31, 2025 , who “expressed skepticism about Suno’s security concerns and suggested a compromise,” according to the plaintiffs’ filing.

An agreement was reached in October 2025 , and the plaintiffs began Stage 1 on November 3, 2025 .

The Audible Magic analysis was completed on January 2, 2026 , with final match results delivered to the plaintiffs on January 15, 2026 .

The labels then undertook what they describe as a manual, multi-step process to compile their expanded list of works from the Audible Magic results.

For Sony , that process involved identifying works believed to be registered with the Copyright Office , compiling registration certificates, manually looking up corresponding ISRC numbers, and comparing those against the Audible Magic match results.

For Universal , the process included creating lists of works asserted in prior litigation, manually searching for and confirming rights, and conferring with artist representatives.

The plaintiffs say they “could have devoted additional time to reviewing the complete set of Audible Magic results and identifying and asserting every copyrighted work infringed by Suno,” but “concentrated on a representative subset” in order to advance the litigation.

According to the filing, Suno ‘s position is that the amendment “would effectively start the case over” and that it is “entitled to an expeditious resolution of its fair use defense.”

The labels say that argument is “meritless,” arguing that “the cause of any delay was Suno ‘s ongoing refusal to provide Plaintiffs with the data in its possession.”

“Denying leave to amend on that ground would effectively reward Suno for copying copyrighted works on an unprecedented scale and then hiding that copying from public view,” the memorandum states.

The plaintiffs have proposed that  Suno ‘s fair use defense be addressed on summary judgment before ownership-related discovery for the new works is completed – a structure they say would “moot any of Suno’s delay-focused objections.”

The motion also notes that the proposed amendment adds works to an existing claim rather than introducing a new legal theory, and that no additional discovery from  Suno  will be needed.

The filing also includes a proposed second amended complaint that reasserts allegations from a  prior proposed amended complaint filed in September 2025 , which alleged that  Suno  obtained recordings by “stream-ripping” them from  YouTube  in violation of  17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) .

That earlier motion for leave to amend – filed in  September 2025  – remains pending.

Warner Music Group  – formerly a co-plaintiff in the case –  settled its lawsuit against Suno and struck a licensing deal with the company in November 2025 .

The  Warner  entities were voluntarily dismissed from the case in  January 2026 .

UMG  and  Sony  remain active plaintiffs, and their  licensing negotiations with Suno have reportedly stalled .

The two remaining labels have also  fought to obtain the terms of Suno’s settlement with Warner Music .

In discovery,  UMG  and  Sony  requested all documents concerning  Suno ‘s plans to alter its business following the  Warner  licensing agreement, as well as post-February  2025  materials regarding its efforts to license training data.

Magistrate Judge Levenson rejected that request on April 6, ruling that, “as Suno argues, settlements of litigation have little persuasive bearing on identifying and characterizing markets for intellectual property.”

The labels objected on  April 20 , arguing the  Warner  deal is not merely a backward-looking settlement but “a forward-looking commercial arrangement.”

Suno  responded on  May 4 , accusing the labels of attempting to “relitigate a dispute they lost.”

The case was originally  filed in June 2024  alongside a parallel lawsuit against rival AI music generator  Udio .

The most recent scheduling order, entered in  March 2026 , sets a deadline for dispositive motions of  January 8, 2027 .

That deadline may need to be revised if the court grants  UMG  and  Sony ‘s motion to amend.

Separately, on Friday (May 22),  Sony Music Entertainment  filed a parallel motion for leave to amend in the  Udio  case, seeking to add  30,442  copyrighted works to that complaint.

As in the  Suno  case, the plaintiffs say they identified the additional works after gaining access to  Udio ‘s training data in discovery, according to the latest court filing, which you can read here . Music Business Worldwide

News United States Artificial Intelligence lawsuits Sony Music Entertainment Suno Universal Music Group

Related Posts

Sony Music moves to add more than 30,000 copyrighted recordings to its lawsuit against Udio

_Originally reported by [Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/umg-and-sony-seek-to-add-61000-copyrighted-works-to-suno-lawsuit-after-discovery-reveals-suno-trained-on-millions-of-their-recordings/)._