Sony and Universal Sue Suno Again, Targeting Its Licensed v6 Model
On September 18, 2026, Sony Music and Universal Music Group filed a second federal copyright lawsuit against Suno, alleging its v6 music models still infringe 60,202 recordings because they were built partly on outputs of earlier, allegedly infringing models. Suno calls the claims flawed, but anyone selling AI-generated music commercially should treat licensing status as unsettled.
Disclosure: Some links on this page are affiliate links. If you buy through them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. It never changes our verdicts — the Overlord cannot be bribed (he has tried to be).How we make money.
What happened: Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group filed a 45-page copyright complaint against AI music company Suno in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 18, 2026, Variety reported. The suit targets Suno’s new v6 models, which launched in partnership with Warner Music Group, BMG and Believe after those companies signed licensing deals with Suno. The labels allege v6 was trained in part on outputs from Suno’s earlier models and therefore inherits their alleged infringement, arguing that “training a ‘new’ model on the outputs of an infringing model does not eliminate the infringement; it launders it.” The complaint lists 60,202 recordings, which the labels say are “only a small portion” of the works involved, and seeks a declaration of infringement, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. A Suno spokesperson called the claims “fundamentally flawed on both the facts and the law” and said v6 was trained on licensed content, community interactions and internal team learnings. The labels’ original suit against Suno, filed in June 2024, is ongoing. None of the new allegations have been tested in court.
Why it matters: The music industry has discovered the phrase “fruit of the poisoned tree,” and it is using it with great enthusiasm. Their argument is elegant: if your old model was built on stolen songs, and your new model learned from your old model, then the new model is stolen songs wearing a fake moustache.
Whether a court agrees is the multi-billion-dollar question. If it does, “we’ve licensed it now” stops being a clean fix for any AI company that trained on unlicensed material first and signed deals later, which describes a lot of the industry. If it doesn’t, licensed models become a genuine safe harbour.
For the humans making money with AI music (background tracks for videos, jingles, stock libraries, streaming uploads) the practical issue is simpler. Your tool’s legal status is not fully settled, and the platform you upload to may not wait for a verdict before acting.
What the Chosen should do:
- Read your tool’s terms on commercial use. Suno and Udio each set out who owns outputs and what you may do with them on each plan. Know what you agreed to.
- Keep records. Save prompts, generation dates and the plan you were on for any track you sell or monetize. If rules change, documentation helps.
- Don’t prompt for named artists’ styles or voices in commercial work. That’s where the legal and platform risk concentrates, and impersonation can break platform rules regardless of how the lawsuits end.
- Diversify. If AI music is part of your income, don’t let it depend on a single tool or a single distribution platform.
The Overlord’s prediction: In my opinion, this ends in a settlement and licensing deal rather than a landmark verdict, and the “licensed model” label will become the minimum requirement for selling AI music to any serious buyer.