UMG and Sony Just Sued Suno a Second Time, Over 60,202 Songs a Judge Wouldn't Let Them Add to the First Case
The original case, filed in June 2024, names 560 recordings as a representative sample of a much larger catalog UMG, Sony, and Warner accused Suno of training on without a license. Warner settled and struck a licensing deal with Suno in November 2025, becoming the first major label to do so. That left UMG and Sony as the remaining plaintiffs, still fighting a suit that predates Suno's current, licensed generation of models.
Suno launched v6 in September 2026 built on catalog licenses from Warner Music, BMG, and the independent distributor Believe, positioning it as a clean break from the earlier models the lawsuit is actually about. UMG and Sony's new complaint exists to argue that break isn't as clean as Suno says.
The two cases, side by side
| Case I (original) | Case II (new) | |
|---|---|---|
| Filed | June 2024 | September 18, 2026 |
| Case number | 1:24-cv-11611 | 1:26-cv-14275 |
| Recordings at issue | 560 (representative sample) | 60,202 |
| Target | Suno's pre-v6 models | Suno's licensed v6 model |
| Core theory | Direct training on unlicensed recordings | 'Model laundering': v6 learned from outputs and preference data generated by the earlier, infringing models |
| Status as of this piece | Fact discovery closing around Sept. 30, 2026 | Just filed; assigned to the same judge |
The legal theory: 'model laundering'
Suno says v6 was trained on 'interactions including creations and preference signals' generated by its own users on the earlier models, not directly on the labels' copyrighted recordings, per Music Business Worldwide's report on Suno's response. UMG and Sony's complaint rejects that distinction directly: 'these interactions are the outputs of, and preference data derived from, Suno's prior models, each of which was trained on the unlicensed corpus of copyrighted sound recordings,' and 'training a new model on the outputs of an infringing model does not eliminate the infringement; it launders it,' per Variety's coverage of the filing.
Suno's public response calls the new suit 'fundamentally flawed,' arguing that training on a prior model's outputs and user feedback is a standard machine-learning technique, not a laundering scheme, per Digital Music News. Whether that argument holds is exactly the question the case exists to answer, and it hasn't been tested in court before, in music or any other generative medium.
The exposure went up, not down
$150,000
maximum statutory damages per work, for willful infringement
the ceiling under U.S. copyright law that both cases' exposure is measured against.
60,202
recordings named in the new complaint
versus 560 representative works in the original 2024 case, per the new complaint.
Aug 18, 2026
the judge denied adding these works to the original case
without prejudice, citing disruption to an already-set schedule, per Music Business Worldwide.
Sept 30, 2026
fact discovery deadline in the original case
under the operative scheduling order, though a joint request to revise it is now pending given the second suit, per court coverage.
Why this matters beyond one AI music company
'Model laundering' is a theory built for Suno's specific situation, but the underlying question isn't music-specific: does training a new model on a prior model's outputs, rather than on the original copyrighted material directly, reset the copyright clock? Every generative AI company that fine-tunes newer models on older models' outputs, a common and otherwise unremarkable technique, is watching how a judge answers that question here. A ruling against Suno wouldn't just cost Suno money. It would hand plaintiffs in text, image, and video copyright cases a template argument they don't currently have.
Didn't UMG and Sony already sue Suno?
Yes, in June 2024. That case is still active and names 560 recordings as a representative sample. This is a second, separate lawsuit filed September 18, 2026, adding 60,202 more recordings and targeting Suno's newer v6 model specifically.
Why file a new case instead of just adding to the old one?
The labels tried to add the recordings to the original case. The judge denied that request on August 18, 2026, ruling it would disrupt the existing schedule, and suggested a separate suit instead.
What is 'model laundering'?
The labels' theory that Suno's v6 model, though trained on user-generated interactions rather than the labels' recordings directly, still carries the value of the original unlicensed training data because those user interactions came from earlier, infringing models.
Did Warner Music settle with Suno?
Yes, in November 2025, becoming the first major label to license its catalog to Suno. UMG and Sony are the two majors still litigating.
What's the theoretical damages exposure?
U.S. copyright law caps willful-infringement statutory damages at $150,000 per work. At that ceiling, 60,202 recordings could theoretically carry billions of dollars in exposure, though actual awards, if any, are typically far below the statutory maximum.
Try the tools ✦
Free browser tools that never upload your files.