Universal Music Seeks to Obtain Warner Music’s Suno Deal Terms

The John Joseph Moakley Courthouse. Photo Credit: 4300streetcar

It’s high time for Suno to disclose the terms of its Warner Music licensing deal – at least according to Universal Music and Sony Music, which are aggressively pushing to obtain a copy of the contract via discovery.

Earlier this week, we touched on the litigating majors’ attempt to get their hands on the Suno-WMG agreement. As many know, UMG and SME are still pursuing copyright infringement claims against the AI music generator.

Warner Music, however, settled, licensed the platform, and, as underscored by execs during earnings calls, is anticipating a material revenue boost as a result. Naturally, these expectations (plus the absence of Suno deals with the other majors) raise questions about the pact’s particulars.

And evidently, UMG and SME are also eager to learn more about the tie-up’s ins and outs, as they moved to compel the contract’s production amid a marathon discovery process. Closer to April’s start, following a mid-March conference, the magistrate judge denied the request (and resolved a number of different discovery disputes).

The filing parties’ “request for documents regarding the Warner Music Group settlement and associated licensing is denied,” Judge Paul Levenson wrote, indicating as well that “the relevance of this information is marginal and the potential for chilling settlements—in this and other cases—is high.”

“As Suno argues, settlements of litigation have little persuasive bearing on identifying and characterizing markets for intellectual property,” the judge concluded.

Normally, this would have been the end of the matter – especially since the judge rejected separate requests from each side.

(Suno’s desired “documents and communications regarding post-complaint unexecuted AI licensing agreements” – in relation to the idea that the labels “could or will attempt to destroy or stifle AI-based innovations in the music industry by concertedly refusing to deal with any AI companies” – is a no-go, for instance.)

But earlier this week, Universal Music and Sony Music submitted a 20-page objection to the denial, emphasizing off the bat their issues with “only one ruling concerning a single document: Suno’s licensing agreement with Warner.”

From there, the plaintiffs in more words reiterated Suno’s (and other AI platforms’) long-running fair use training defense – and the significance of inking a deal authorizing the purportedly above-board practices at hand.

“For nearly two years,” the non-Warner majors vented, “Suno has supported its fair use defense in this litigation by arguing that no viable market exists for licensing sound recordings as training data for generative AI models. Yet, in November 2025, Suno entered into the very type of agreement it claims is not feasible—a licensing deal with Warner Music Group to use copyrighted sound recordings as training data for new generative AI models.”

“The net effect of the Order is to permit Suno to argue that no licensing market exists while simultaneously shielding from discovery the very agreement that proves the existence of, and Suno’s participation in, that market,” they proceeded.

(What about getting Warner Music to produce the contract? “Because Warner is no longer a party to the litigation, Plaintiffs are unable to obtain the agreement from Warner, short of a third-party subpoena,” UMG and SME wrote.)

Of course, their hefty document also dives into the discovery rejection’s perceived shortcomings; there’s said to be much more, referring in the main to robust go-forward terms, to the WMG-Suno deal than a settlement.

In any event, if the production denial remains in place, Suno should “be precluded from arguing at summary judgment or trial that no viable market exists for licensing sound recordings as training data for generative AI models,” per SME and UMG.

Finally, Sony Music’s decision to continue litigating against Udio – despite the Suno rival’s settlements and deals with Universal Music and Warner Music – now makes a bit more sense.

AI giants’ alleged “stream-ripping” of protected audio for training, purportedly in violation of the DMCA’s section 1201, has become a key focus in several suits. And while we’ve explored the multifaceted subject in detail, the short version is that a whole lot is riding on whether YouTube’s “rolling cipher” anti-piracy measure constitutes an access or a copy control.

In recently denying Udio’s motion to dismiss the DMCA claim, Judge Alvin Hellerstein found that SME “plausibly alleges that YouTube employs technological measures that regulate access to its content and that [Udio] circumvented them.”

“Whether YouTube’s measures ultimately constitute access controls within the meaning of § 1201 requires a greater factual record than the pleadings contain. Defendants may renew their arguments after a factual record is developed,” the judge continued.

Despite the need for “a greater factual record,” UMG and SME, which are looking to amend their Suno suit and add a DMCA allegation, promptly moved to capitalize on the Udio case’s development with a “notice of supplemental authority.”

Unsurprisingly, Suno fired back in a letter of its own, claiming that the Udio dismissal decision “is neither controlling nor instructive” and pointing to Yout’s ongoing RIAA showdown.