Judge Rejects Expansion of Sony Music's Lawsuit Against Udio, Suno Cites Precedent

A federal judge in New York has rejected Sony Music's bid to add nearly 30,000 recordings to its lawsuit against Udio, the generative music startup. The ruling came just before the close of discovery and has already become a talking point in Sony's parallel case against rival company Suno.

What the court decided

Judge Hellerstein explained his denial by noting that adding more than 30,000 tracks this close to the end of discovery would require an enormous amount of additional work producing documents, would trigger further procedural disputes, and would substantially change the scope of a case the court has already been handling for two years. In other words, he found that the window for expanding the scale of the claims had already closed.

Adding over 30,000 songs close to the close of discovery would require substantial additional production and review, would generate further disputes, and would materially change the scope of the case I am managing - Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein

In practice, this means the Sony-Udio trial will proceed over roughly 300 disputed recordings rather than the tens of thousands the label sought to add after audio fingerprinting analysis reportedly showed that Udio's model had been trained on millions of the label's copyrighted songs.

Suno seizes on the precedent

The ruling in the Udio case immediately made its way into Sony Music's parallel lawsuit against Suno, being heard before a different court in Massachusetts. Sony had filed a motion there to add roughly 61,000 tracks after a May discovery analysis suggested Suno had trained its model on millions of the label's recordings.

Suno's lawyers used Judge Hellerstein's decision to argue that a similar expansion in their case should be rejected on the same procedural grounds, despite the different jurisdiction. It's a clear example of how a procedural ruling in one AI music lawsuit can quickly shape defense strategy in another, parallel dispute.

Why Sony held out

Unlike Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, which settled with Udio in October 2025 and with Suno in November 2025 respectively, Sony Music chose to keep litigating rather than negotiate a license. The label is apparently betting that a ruling establishing legal liability for training models on unlicensed recordings is worth more than a one-off settlement.

A bilateral settlement would give Sony a licensing revenue stream for itself alone. A court ruling that training generative models on unlicensed music violates copyright would force every AI company operating in the music space to license, not just Suno and Udio.

What's next and why it matters

A pivotal hearing in the Sony-Suno case, on a motion for summary judgment, is scheduled for July 2026 before Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in Massachusetts. That ruling could determine whether training generative models on copyrighted recordings falls under fair use or amounts to copyright infringement on an industrial scale.

For Poland's music market and artists relying on streaming platforms, the case carries indirect but real weight: a US ruling will set a precedent that lawyers and labels worldwide will invoke, including European collective rights management organizations already negotiating licensing terms for generative AI models.

Sources: Music Business Worldwide (musicbusinessworldwide.com), Digital Music News (digitalmusicnews.com)