Imagine building a company worth $5.4 billion, only to risk having to pay more than double that in damages. That is the reality Suno is facing right now. The toughest legal battle in the AI music world is underway, and it has intensified dramatically in recent weeks.
From 560 songs to over 61,000
When Sony and Universal Music filed suit against Suno in 2024, they initially listed 560 musical works allegedly used to train the AI without permission. Back then, that sounded like a manageable number. However, according to reports from TechTimes, Music Business Worldwide, and Complete Music Update, the scope has changed drastically since then.
With the help of Audible Magic, a company that identifies songs based on acoustic characteristics like pitch, harmony, and rhythmic structure, Suno’s training dataset was systematically audited. The result was clear: Suno’s training data contained millions of recordings owned by Universal and Sony. In May 2026, the labels filed a motion to expand the lawsuit to 61,026 specifically identified works—calling it "just a small fraction" of the actual hits. Blake CrosleySuno AI
The number that changes everything: $9.1 billion
What this means in concrete terms is a simple calculation: Under U.S. copyright law, rights holders can claim up to $150,000 per infringed work. With 61,026 works, that results in a maximum claim for damages of over $9.1 billion. For comparison, Suno’s total valuation is $5.4 billion. SunoMV
Suno itself is fighting the expansion of the lawsuit, arguing according to Music Business Worldwide that it comes too late and would unjustifiably delay the proceedings. The labels countered that Suno's objections are baseless.
The next big showdown: July 2026
Even more explosive: A crucial summary judgment hearing is scheduled for July 2026 before the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. There, the core question will be addressed: Is training an AI on copyrighted songs allowed under the U.S. "Fair Use" doctrine—or is it simply theft? Suno argues that the AI only learns statistical patterns of melody, harmony, and timbre without copying the songs. The labels argue the opposite. Nexaluna
While Warner Music has already reached a settlement with Suno, Sony continues to fight on as the last remaining major label. In addition, the law firm Hagens Berman—specializing in class-action lawsuits and known for the $260 billion tobacco settlement—has entered the legal battle as a new force representing independent artists. SunoMV
What this ruling means for everyone
The significance of this case extends far beyond Suno: The court must clarify how a generative AI model relates to its training data—a precedent that applies well beyond Suno and affects every company that has ever trained a generative model with data it did not license. Nexaluna
For you as a Suno user, this means: The app continues to run as normal, and a ruling this summer would only be the beginning of a long appeals process. However, the outcome will determine whether AI music will become significantly more expensive in the future—or if the current model can hold its ground.
Conclusion: What this means for AI.OnAir listeners
Suno is at a historic crossroads: $400 million in fresh capital on one side, potential billions in claims on the other. The July court date could set the course—not just for Suno, but for the entire global AI music industry. We at AI.OnAir will keep you updated and report as soon as the court has spoken.
Get your music on the radio
Are you ready to present your songs to a wide audience? Submit your tracks via the AI.OnAir Control Center, benefit from heavy rotation, and build your own premium artist page.
Jetzt Song einreichenFrequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Due to 61,026 identified works used for training without permission, music labels are demanding damages of up to $9.1 billion.
The court must decide whether training AI models on copyrighted musical works falls under U.S. Fair Use regulations or constitutes copyright infringement.
For current Suno users, nothing will change in the short term, as the app continues to function normally. Furthermore, the ruling is only the beginning of a potentially long path through the legal system.