Universal and Warner Seek Lawsuit Dismissal in US Musicians’ AI Deals Case

Universal and Warner press court to end US musicians’ lawsuit over Udio, Suno deals

September 17, 2026 By Murray Stassen

Universal Music Group and Warner Records have told a New York federal court that the American Federation of Musicians conceded away its own case when it accepted that no union agreement covers AI.

Continue to article...

Both companies filed reply briefs on Friday ( September 11 ) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York .

The two filings close briefing on the motions to dismiss the union’s lawsuit over the majors’ licensing deals with AI music companies Suno and Udio .

“This is a paradigm case for dismissal based on the clear and unambiguous language of a contract,” lawyers for UMG wrote.

The case rests on Article 21(a) of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement , the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the record companies.

Article 21(a) covers what the contract calls a new use of a recording, meaning its use “for a purpose not covered by this Agreement.”

You can read UMG’s reply brief here , and the filing from Warner Records here.

“Article 21(a) does not state a rate,” UMG ‘s lawyers wrote. “It imports one from the separate AFM agreement governing the new purpose.

“And AFM has conceded that no such agreement exists for the AI Use.”

The UMG brief points to the July 21 pre-motion conference, at which US District Judge Edgardo Ramos asked whether such an agreement exists for AI.

“No. So, there is no underlying agreement for AI use. We conceded that,” the union’s counsel, Eyad Asad , answered, according to the transcript quoted in the filing.

“That concession ends this case,” UMG ‘s lawyers wrote. “Discovery cannot change that fact, much less create the missing agreement.

“A payment obligation measured by an agreement that does not exist is no payment obligation at all.”

> “A PAYMENT OBLIGATION MEASURED BY AN AGREEMENT THAT DOES NOT EXIST IS NO PAYMENT OBLIGATION AT ALL.” Universal Music Group’s reply memorandum

The AFM filed its opposition on September 4 , arguing that Article 21(a) is “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation” and that the SRLA itself can be the agreement the provision points to.

“Unable to answer that text, AFM offers a scattershot series of arguments that obscure rather than confront what the contract makes clear,” UMG wrote in reply.

“Ambiguity is a property of contractual text, not a litigation strategy,” UMG ‘s lawyers wrote. “AFM cannot manufacture it simply by offering multiple theories that the text does not reasonably support.”

On the union’s argument that the words “shall pay” create a duty whatever the rate, the UMG brief says the measure cannot be severed from the obligation it defines.

“The measure is not an accessory to the obligation; it is the obligation,” UMG wrote. “AFM cannot enforce the verb while deleting its object.”

The filing also says the AFM ‘s streaming and sampling theories are new claims that the amended complaint never pleaded.

The union asked in a footnote for leave to plead a separate sampling claim. “A footnote is not a motion,” UMG ‘s lawyers wrote.

> “AFM’s contorted reading of the SRLA should be rejected, not least of all because AFM members were already paid those session scale rates AFM contends they would be owed under its newly devised theory.” Brief filed by lawyers for Warner Records

Warner Records and Atlantic Recording Corp. filed their own reply the same day, arguing that the union cannot walk back what it has already told the court.

The two Warner Music Group labels are the defendants in place of the parent company, which the AFM named when it first sued. Warner argued in July that the parent is not a signatory to the SRLA , and the union dropped it from the case in an amended complaint.

The union’s opposition “does not – and cannot – walk back its two fatal admissions,” lawyers for Warner wrote.

Those admissions, the brief says, are that AI use “is not a purpose covered by the SRLA ” and that “[t]here is no underlying agreement for AI use.”

Warner ‘s reply then takes aim at the union’s argument that the SRLA ‘s own session scale rates could supply the measure.

“AFM’s contorted reading of the SRLA should be rejected, not least of all because AFM members were already paid those session scale rates AFM contends they would be owed under its newly devised theory,” Warner ‘s lawyers wrote.

The brief says musicians on the recordings at issue were paid the SRLA ‘s base rates.

“They were paid those base rates, which is precisely what they are entitled to under the SRLA,” the filing says. “They do not have a right to the additional payments AFM now seeks.”

On the sampling argument, Warner ‘s lawyers wrote that “the word ‘sample’ is not mentioned once in the FAC,” referring to the union’s first amended complaint.

The brief says the AFM alleges that entire recordings, rather than portions of them, were licensed to the AI companies.

Warner also argues that setting a rate would put the court in a role it does not hold.

The filing says doing so would “impermissibly turn the Court into a ‘central planner[], identifying the proper price,’ as Justice Scalia put it, or in Judge Easterbrook ‘s words, a ‘little version[] of the Office of Price Administration…'”

“It is clear that AFM is using this lawsuit to obtain more favorable contractual rights than it currently possesses, but collective bargaining on this very issue is currently underway,” Warner ‘s lawyers wrote.

“The Court should reject AFM ‘s effort to circumvent the parties’ negotiations.”

UMG and Warner are both asking the court to throw out the claim with prejudice.

“Amendment is futile where the defect lies in the contract rather than the pleading,” UMG wrote, adding that “no pleading can create an agreement the parties never made.”

Warner ‘s brief says that “no amendment can create a new AFM agreement or payment term the parties never made.”

The AFM first sued in June and filed an amended complaint on July 24 , alleging that the companies breached the SRLA by licensing recordings made by its members to the two AI companies without paying or crediting them.

Universal asked the court to throw out the case on August 5 , and Warner Records and Atlantic filed their own motion on August 14 . Warner Music Group Corp. was formally removed as a defendant on August 20 .

Universal settled its copyright case against Udio in October 2025, and has not settled with Suno .

Warner Music Group settled with Udio in November 2025, then days later became the first major to settle with Suno .

Sony Music , which has not settled with either AI company, is not a party to the AFM case.

The union and the labels are negotiating the next SRLA , with AI at the center of the talks.

UMG is represented by Orin Snyder of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP , and Warner by David A. Munkittrick of Proskauer Rose LLP .

The UMG brief notes that Judge Ramos closed the July 21 conference by “encourag[ing the parties] to continue the collective bargaining process.”

“That process, not this lawsuit, is where the parties’ contract sends AFM ‘s demand,” the filing says. Music Business Worldwide

_Originally reported by [Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/universal-and-warner-press-court-to-end-us-musicians-lawsuit-over-udio-suno-deals/)._