Sony sues Suno; the hearing is this month: whether using AI to train copyrighted songs counts as “fair use” goes to court for the first time

Should AI be trained with copyrighted songs—does that count as “fair use” or not? This issue that has plagued the entire AI industry for two years will, for the first time, be taken up by a U.S. federal judge this month. Sony Music’s copyright lawsuit against AI music generation platform Suno is the world’s first case to put the question of whether “AI music training is infringing” directly before a judge for a ruling, and the outcome will affect collective lawsuits brought by musicians worldwide.
(Background: Beijing is considering regulating DeepSeek and Moonshot, as China’s AI models are being snapped up by Silicon Valley at bargain prices.)
(Additional context: Anthropic has launched a new “Review Dashboard” to help you review your interactions with Claude and teach you how to collaborate with AI more intelligently.)

Key takeaways

• Sony Music’s copyright case against AI music platform Suno entered a summary judgment hearing in Massachusetts federal court in July, presided over by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV
• This is the first case worldwide to ask a federal judge to rule on whether training AI on copyrighted recordings counts as fair use; statutory damages for infringement can reach up to $150,000 per work
• Warner settled with Suno in November 2025, and UMG settled with Udio in October 2025; Sony is the only major label still fighting—Suno raised $400 million in June and is valued at $5.4 billion

Feeding copyrighted songs into AI— is it legal or not? This question will be decided for real in U.S. federal court in Massachusetts this month. Sony Music’s copyright lawsuit against AI music generation platform Suno entered a summary judgment (summary judgment) hearing in July, presided over by Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Summary judgment is a legal determination made by a judge on facts that neither side disputes before a formal trial—effectively setting the outcome early. The central dispute throughout the case is how many millions of copyrighted recordings Suno used to train its AI, and whether that qualifies as “fair use.”

For an issue that has troubled the entire AI industry for two years, this time there’s no way to dodge it with a settlement—you have to face the judge head-on.

Both sides get stuck on the fourth factor of “fair use”

Suno’s defense is “transformative use,” arguing that the model learns the patterns and rules of music and generates entirely new works, not copy-and-paste replicas of the original tracks, and it cites support from the Bartz ruling in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sony’s main argument is the fourth fair-use factor—“market harm”—meaning that when the AI-generated music directly competes in the same market as the recordings used for training, the element of infringement is satisfied. Under U.S. law, fair use is judged by four factors, and the fourth—whether it steals revenue from the original creator—is often the most decisive.

The litigation escalated in May this year. Sony and UMG, using audio fingerprinting, claim Suno used “millions” of copyrighted tracks, and they filed a motion to add 61,026 recordings to the lawsuit. If infringement is found, statutory damages under the U.S. Copyright Act are up to $150,000 per work—just multiplying those 60,000-plus tracks yields an astronomical figure.

Big labels are down to only Sony digging in; Suno keeps raising funds while being sued

This fight originally involved the three major labels together. In June 2024, RIAA, on behalf of Sony, UMG, and Warner, filed a lawsuit against Suno (Boston) and Udio (New York). But the front lines quickly split: Warner settled with Suno in November 2025 and signed a licensing agreement, while UMG settled with Udio in October 2025, negotiating the first AI music licensing template, with royalties paid of $0.002 to $0.005 per generation. Now only Sony has two cases still not settled—insisting on a judgment.

More subtly, Suno in the defendant’s seat doesn’t look like a company about to collapse. It raised $400 million in June, and its valuation jumped to $5.4 billion. This may help explain how the capital markets view the situation.

No matter how the judge rules in this case—whatever the outcome—the entire industry will use it as a benchmark. If the court rules that Suno’s training “does not qualify as fair use,” the collective lawsuits by independent musicians, as well as the outside attention on Anthropic’s $3 billion publisher lawsuit, will all find strong points of reference. If the court rules that the use is transformative and protected, the negotiation standards between record labels and AI companies will be completely flipped.

Frequently asked questions

What is the core dispute in Sony’s lawsuit against Suno?

The dispute is whether Suno uses millions of copyrighted recordings to train its AI music model, and whether that constitutes “fair use.” Suno argues that it is transformative use; Sony argues that the AI outputs compete with the original recordings in the same market, causing market harm.

Why is the ruling in the Suno copyright case important?

It is the first case worldwide to hand the question of whether “AI music training is infringing” to a federal judge. The result will become a key reference for follow-on cases such as collective lawsuits by independent musicians and Anthropic’s $3 billion publisher lawsuit, affecting the entire AI industry.