Where the AI-music lawsuits actually stand in August 2026

Since late 2025, headlines have framed the major labels' cases against Suno and Udio as resolved through settlements, partnerships and licensed platforms. The dockets show several active cases and different positions among the labels.

UMG v. Suno (D. Mass.)

The six Warner plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice in a stipulation filed in December 2025, so they cannot refile. Everyone else stayed. UMG Recordings, Capitol Records and Sony Music Entertainment remain active plaintiffs: they moved to amend the complaint in May 2026, objected in April to how Suno's licensing agreement with Warner affects the case, and argued before a magistrate judge on July 9. The UMG/Sony case remains active.

The July procedural fight also changed the possible scale of this case. UMG and Sony sought to add 61,026 recordings after an audio-fingerprinting review. On 18 August, the court declined that expansion without prejudice, citing the scale and timing near the end of discovery. The recordings are not part of this case, although the labels can pursue a separate related action.

The same day, the court allowed UMG and Sony to add a different theory: that Suno circumvented YouTube's rolling cipher when it used YT-DL and YT-DLP to acquire audio. The labels filed their amended complaint on 25 August. The order allows a DMCA anti-circumvention claim to proceed; it does not find that the tools actually bypassed a qualifying access control or decide whether training was fair use. Our procedural brief separates those questions.

UMG v. Uncharted Labs / Udio (S.D.N.Y.)

UMG and Capitol dismissed without prejudice in November 2025, preserving their right to refile. Warner's entities followed the same month on the same basis. The Sony plaintiffs remain: the court denied a motion to dismiss one of their counts in April 2026, discovery runs through August 25, and a status conference is set for September 18.

Three independent cases moved in August

The independent-musician class action against Udio led by Woulard survived a motion to dismiss on 3 August. The judge transferred the case from Illinois to the Southern District of New York, where it can proceed alongside other Udio litigation. Survival at this stage is not a finding of infringement.

Two separate Suno plaintiffs then ended their cases on 13 August. Jamendo dismissed without prejudice, preserving the possibility of refiling. The American Dollar and Poseidon Wave dismissed with prejudice, which ends those particular claims. The filings did not publicly explain the different outcomes.

On 20 August, the Massachusetts court kept the core copyright and DMCA claims alive in Justice et al. v. Suno, while dismissing a Tennessee consumer-protection claim. Again, that is a pleading-stage decision, not a merits ruling on training or fair use.

A separate union case asks who gets paid for AI licences

The American Federation of Musicians sued UMG and Warner in June, alleging that recordings made under their collective-bargaining agreement were licensed to Udio, and by Warner to Suno, without compensation or credit for the performers.

UMG moved to dismiss its part of the case on 5 August. The company argues that the agreement contains no payment rate for AI training and requires the parties to negotiate a new-use arrangement instead. The union argues that the absence of an AI rate does not erase the obligation to compensate musicians. The court has not decided that dispute.

The union case asks how money from a label-authorised AI licence should flow to the musicians who performed on the licensed recordings.

Current status

Some parties have settled, some plaintiffs have left with different refiling rights, and several label and independent cases remain active. There is still no final merits ruling that resolves whether commercial AI-music training is fair use.