Sony Sues Udio Over 30,000 Songs in New AI Copyright Case

Sony Music Entertainment filed a new copyright lawsuit against AI music generator Udio in a New York court on Monday, alleging infringement of more than 30,000 songs. The catalogue spans a wide range: Elvis Presley's Hound Dog, Beyonce's Say My Name, and Harry Styles' As It Was are among the named tracks. Sony says those 30,000 songs are only a fraction of the works Udio actually copied, and the filing follows discovery access to Udio's training data from an earlier 2024 case brought jointly with Universal Music Group and Warner Records.

What happened

Detail	Fact
Plaintiff	Sony Music Entertainment
Defendant	Udio (AI music generator)
Court	New York
Songs cited	More than 30,000
Named tracks	Hound Dog (Elvis Presley), Say My Name (Beyonce), As It Was (Harry Styles)
Prior lawsuit filed	2024, jointly with Universal Music Group and Warner Records against Udio and Suno

Sony Music filed the lawsuit on Monday, citing more than 30,000 songs it says Udio used without authorisation to train its AI music generator. The filing, first reported by Music Business Worldwide, states directly that the 30,000-song list covers “only a small portion” of the works Udio infringed.

The expanded claim follows the original 2024 lawsuit, in which Sony joined Universal Music Group and Warner Records to sue both Udio and Suno. Through the discovery process in that earlier case, Sony gained access to Udio’s training data and used what it found to build this new, larger claim.

Why it matters

This lawsuit is one of the largest copyright actions ever brought against an AI company by song count alone. If Sony’s claim that 30,000 titles is still only a fraction of the actual infringement holds up, the potential damages figure could be enormous. Under US copyright law, statutory damages per infringed work can reach tens of thousands of dollars.

The case also signals how music industry litigation against AI generators is maturing. Early suits established the legal theory. Now, with discovery access to training datasets, labels are putting specific numbers on the alleged copying. That shift makes settlements harder to keep vague and puts AI music platforms in a difficult position heading into any licensing negotiations.

For businesses thinking about AI integration in creative workflows, this is a practical reminder that the legal status of AI-generated content trained on copyrighted material is still very much unsettled. Using an AI music tool commercially carries real risk until these cases are resolved.

Our take

The discovery angle here is worth noting. Sony did not file a 30,000-song list based on guesswork. It examined Udio’s actual training data and then built its case from that evidence. That is a structurally stronger position than arguing from outputs alone, and it is the playbook other rights holders will likely copy.

Udio, like Suno, built a compelling product. But neither company appears to have secured the kind of blanket licensing deals that would have given them a defensible foundation. The music industry’s lawsuits are now well past the “signal-sending” phase and into fact-finding. We would not count on AI music generators in their current form surviving this wave of litigation without either licensing deals or fundamental changes to how they train.

We covered a related copyright battle earlier this year when Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement got final approval, a sign that these disputes do eventually resolve, but at significant cost.

What to do about it

1. Avoid using AI music generators for commercial projects until their copyright status is clearer.
2. If you need licensed music, use platforms with explicit rights agreements such as stock music libraries.
3. Watch both the Udio and Suno cases for settlement terms, which will likely define what licensing for AI music looks like going forward.
4. If your business uses AI-generated content in any form, ask your legal team to review your exposure now rather than after a claim arrives.

Source: The Verge · AI