Judge refuses to dismiss indie artist’s proposed class action against Suno, clearing AI output and stream-ripping claims for discovery
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
A US federal judge has allowed most of indie country artist Tony Justice’s proposed class action against AI music company Suno to continue into discovery. The ruling means the court will examine claims that Suno trained its system on artists’ YouTube recordings without permission and produced music that may unlawfully imitate protected works, an early procedural victory for the artists rather than a finding of liability.
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV rejected Suno’s attempt to dismiss the derivative-works and alleged stream-ripping claims, while leaving an unchallenged copyright-reproduction claim intact. Although the complaint did not identify a specific Suno output infringing the plaintiffs’ own songs, it cited about 100 examples involving other rightsholders; the judge said infringement by Suno’s outputs was a plausible inference to test through discovery. The sole dismissed count was under Tennessee’s consumer-protection law, which the plaintiffs said had been cited inadvertently.
- Most claims against Suno will proceed to discovery.
- Judge found alleged infringing outputs plausible enough to investigate.
- Stream-ripping allegations also survived Suno’s dismissal bid.
New here? Start with this
Copyright law gives creators control over how their music is copied and used, including in some cases to make new works based on it. AI music companies train software on large collections of recordings so it can generate songs from user prompts; disputes have arisen over whether using recordings this way requires permission.
Tony Justice is an independent country artist bringing the case on behalf of a proposed group of artists, while Suno is the company whose music-generating system is challenged. The case matters because its outcome could help clarify how copyright rules apply to training AI on music and to songs the systems generate.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Artists argue that using their recordings to train a commercial system without permission may exploit their creative work and weaken their control over how it is reused. They say discovery is needed to establish what Suno copied and whether its outputs unlawfully draw on protected music, especially when the company holds much of the relevant information.
The case against
Suno and its supporters can argue that allowing the claims to proceed does not establish that training on recordings or generating similar music violates copyright, and that the plaintiffs have not identified an infringing output based on their own songs. They may contend that copyright law should distinguish copying protected expression from learning musical patterns, and that discovery should not turn a plausible allegation into an assumption of liability.
Full account
A federal judge in Massachusetts has allowed the main parts of a proposed class action against AI music company Suno to move into discovery. The case was brought by country artist Tony Justice alongside other independent artists and artist-owned rights-holders, who say Suno copied recordings and compositions from YouTube for model training and generated music that can reproduce protected features of their work.
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV declined to dismiss the claim that Suno’s generated music may amount to unauthorised derivative works. Although the amended complaint did not identify a particular Suno output said to be substantially similar to any named plaintiff’s song, it cited numerous examples involving other rightsholders and alleged that the system had been designed to mimic its training material. The judge held that this made the claim plausible for pleading purposes, while leaving the question of proof until after discovery.
The judge also permitted a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act concerning alleged circumvention of YouTube’s technical protections. The claim centres on assertions that Suno used stream-ripping tools, including YT-DL and YT-DLP, to obtain audio by dealing with YouTube’s rolling cipher, which is said to obscure media-file addresses. Suno has argued that freely viewable YouTube material is not protected by an access control within the meaning of the statute; the court concluded that a fuller factual record was needed on the technology and the tools’ operation.
One consumer-protection count under Tennessee law was dismissed after the plaintiffs acknowledged that it had been included in error. A separate report concerns the related major-label litigation brought by Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment: it says the labels were allowed to add a stream-ripping allegation but were refused permission to add more than 61,000 further recordings. That report also says the labels are not presently alleging infringing outputs except where evidence later shows that outputs recapture protected recordings.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 reports on the independent artists’ proposed class action and places particular emphasis on the derivative-works/output allegation, including the court’s willingness to infer possible similarity before discovery.
Source 2 reports on the separate UMG and Sony lawsuit, focusing on the DMCA stream-ripping amendment, Suno’s alleged use of particular downloading tools, and the unsuccessful attempt to expand the list of recordings.
The reports give slightly different dates for the relevant rulings: Source 1 refers to an August 20 order, while Source 2 refers to August 18 orders and an amended complaint filed on August 25. They may be describing different orders in related proceedings rather than a single inconsistency.
More coverage
AI Art Culture Entertainment Music Research Science Technology