Blab AI
Independent Musicians Join Class Action Against AI Music Platforms Suno and Udio
June 2026 saw a wave of independent musicians rallying against AI music platforms Suno and Udio, filing a federal class‑action that could reshape how artificial‑intelligence models learn from music. The suit, brought by Delgado Entertainment Law and joined by Hagens Berman, accuses the two companies of training on copyrighted songs without permission and seeks both the disclosure of the data used and monetary damages.
The announcement came via the law firm’s YouTube channel, where lead attorney Krystle Delgado declared that Suno and Udio “committed copyright infringement, and now they owe you money.” She added that independent artists had been left out of prior legal proceedings and that this action would finally give them a seat at the table. The video also promised that, once a court order is issued, the plaintiffs’ songs would be searched in the companies’ databases.
The roster of plaintiffs has exploded in a short time. The lawsuit’s website, indieailawsuit.com, listed only a few hundred musicians when it was first filed. After The Atlantic published an investigation in June that exposed the breadth of music used for AI training, the list doubled within 72 hours, pushing the total to more than a thousand creators. The group includes singers, producers, and songwriters who claim their works were incorporated into Suno’s and Udio’s training sets without licensing.
Suno, founded in December 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, launched a web app that generates music from text or audio prompts. Udio, also launched in 2024, offers similar capabilities and has attracted backing from Andreessen Horowitz and musicians such as will.i.am and Common. Both platforms have faced scrutiny over their data sources; Suno has already been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, and Udio has been the subject of a separate class action.
Major record labels Sony, Warner, and Universal have filed lawsuits against Suno and Udio as well, but those cases do not seek disclosure of training data. The class‑action attorneys argue that proving the use of plaintiffs’ songs in the training sets is essential to establishing a claim for damages. The Udio suit is now advancing toward discovery, and a court may compel the company to release its training data in the coming months.
The dispute unfolds amid a broader legislative debate about AI training data. Several bills are circulating in Congress, including the COPIED Act, which would make it unlawful to train AI models on copyrighted material without permission; the TRAIN Act, which would require AI providers to disclose the data used for training; and the CLEAR Act, which would grant additional protections for creators. Supporters of the legislation say it would give artists a clearer path to enforce their rights.
The class action also underscores the hurdles independent musicians face in protecting their works. Unlike major labels, indie artists often lack the resources to monitor AI usage or to pursue litigation on their own. By joining a collective action, they aim to leverage the legal system to obtain evidence of infringement and to seek compensation.
The lawsuit’s progress will hinge on the court’s willingness to order discovery of the training data. If the companies comply, plaintiffs could identify specific songs used in the models and quantify the extent of infringement. The outcome may also influence how AI music platforms source and license content in the future.
At present, the case remains in the early stages of federal litigation. The plaintiffs are awaiting court orders that would force Suno and Udio to disclose their training datasets. Meanwhile, the legislative proposals continue to move through congressional committees, and the industry watches to see whether new laws will change the legal landscape for AI training and music copyright.
The lawsuit underscores the growing tension between generative‑AI developers and the music community. As AI music tools become more widespread, the legal questions surrounding training data, copyright, and compensation will likely intensify. For independent musicians, the current case represents a significant step toward asserting their rights in the evolving AI‑driven music ecosystem.
The announcement came via the law firm’s YouTube channel, where lead attorney Krystle Delgado declared that Suno and Udio “committed copyright infringement, and now they owe you money.” She added that independent artists had been left out of prior legal proceedings and that this action would finally give them a seat at the table. The video also promised that, once a court order is issued, the plaintiffs’ songs would be searched in the companies’ databases.
The roster of plaintiffs has exploded in a short time. The lawsuit’s website, indieailawsuit.com, listed only a few hundred musicians when it was first filed. After The Atlantic published an investigation in June that exposed the breadth of music used for AI training, the list doubled within 72 hours, pushing the total to more than a thousand creators. The group includes singers, producers, and songwriters who claim their works were incorporated into Suno’s and Udio’s training sets without licensing.
Suno, founded in December 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, launched a web app that generates music from text or audio prompts. Udio, also launched in 2024, offers similar capabilities and has attracted backing from Andreessen Horowitz and musicians such as will.i.am and Common. Both platforms have faced scrutiny over their data sources; Suno has already been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, and Udio has been the subject of a separate class action.
Major record labels Sony, Warner, and Universal have filed lawsuits against Suno and Udio as well, but those cases do not seek disclosure of training data. The class‑action attorneys argue that proving the use of plaintiffs’ songs in the training sets is essential to establishing a claim for damages. The Udio suit is now advancing toward discovery, and a court may compel the company to release its training data in the coming months.
The dispute unfolds amid a broader legislative debate about AI training data. Several bills are circulating in Congress, including the COPIED Act, which would make it unlawful to train AI models on copyrighted material without permission; the TRAIN Act, which would require AI providers to disclose the data used for training; and the CLEAR Act, which would grant additional protections for creators. Supporters of the legislation say it would give artists a clearer path to enforce their rights.
The class action also underscores the hurdles independent musicians face in protecting their works. Unlike major labels, indie artists often lack the resources to monitor AI usage or to pursue litigation on their own. By joining a collective action, they aim to leverage the legal system to obtain evidence of infringement and to seek compensation.
The lawsuit’s progress will hinge on the court’s willingness to order discovery of the training data. If the companies comply, plaintiffs could identify specific songs used in the models and quantify the extent of infringement. The outcome may also influence how AI music platforms source and license content in the future.
At present, the case remains in the early stages of federal litigation. The plaintiffs are awaiting court orders that would force Suno and Udio to disclose their training datasets. Meanwhile, the legislative proposals continue to move through congressional committees, and the industry watches to see whether new laws will change the legal landscape for AI training and music copyright.
The lawsuit underscores the growing tension between generative‑AI developers and the music community. As AI music tools become more widespread, the legal questions surrounding training data, copyright, and compensation will likely intensify. For independent musicians, the current case represents a significant step toward asserting their rights in the evolving AI‑driven music ecosystem.
