Topic

Lawsuits

  • AI music lawsuits explained: the major cases, what they're about and what happens next

    Labels, publishers and collecting societies have sued Suno, Udio and Anthropic, and independent artists have filed class actions of their own. This page lists 23 major lawsuits, in 21 rows, with their status as of 23 Oct 2026, explains the four legal questions they turn on, and sets out what each outcome would mean for independent musicians.

    Workflows

  • Concord v. Anthropic: 120,000 lyric prompts and the first AI fair-use summary-judgment hearing since Bartz and Kadrey

    Music publishers and Anthropic argued cross-motions for summary judgment over Claude and song lyrics on 21 Oct 2026, with no ruling yet. The publishers are testing "market dilution", the theory that AI-written lyrics compete with human songwriters, which one 2025 ruling dismissed and another said could win.

    Artist rightsvia US District Court, N.D. Cal. (via CourtListener)

  • "AI training is fair use" isn't settled law: what Bartz and Kadrey decided, and why music is different

    Two US judges ruled in June 2025 that training language models on books was fair use, but only on the records in front of them, and one said plainly that most such copying will likely be illegal. Music cases turn on market harm, and that is where songwriters and labels have a stronger hand than the authors did.

    Artist rightsvia US District Court, N.D. California (via CourtListener RECAP)

  • Jason Isbell's class action against Suno is about identity, not copyright

    Jason Isbell, David Lowery, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle have sued Suno under state publicity laws and Illinois' biometric privacy law, not copyright. They say Suno's model knows musicians by name and voice. If the theory holds, it gives artists who don't own their masters a claim of their own, though as drafted it favours the famous.

    Artist rightsvia US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (via Music Business Worldwide)

  • Voice actors win round one against an AI voice company in New York: what Lehrman v. Lovo means for singers

    A federal judge in Manhattan has let two voice actors pursue New York publicity, consumer-protection and contract claims against Lovo, the AI voice company they say cloned them, while dismissing most of their trademark and copyright claims. This was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a win at trial. Its reasoning still matters to singers: in this court's view, copyright in a recording doesn't protect the voice on it, but New York's civil rights law does.

    Artist rightsvia US District Court for the Southern District of New York

Subscribe to We are the music makers

One email a week: the music-tech and AI-in-music news that mattered, and what we think about it.

Sign-ups open soon.