Universal and Sony have sued Suno, the Cambridge-based AI music company, a second time in federal court in Boston. The new complaint, filed September 18, 2026, asserts 60,202 sound recordings that the labels say Suno copied without permission to train the AI models behind its song generator. Their first suit, filed in June 2024, is still pending before the same judge.
Separately, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV has refused to throw out the core claims in a class action brought by independent musicians against Suno. That ruling, dated August 20, 2026, was reported this week by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Together, the two cases make the federal courthouse in Boston one of the main places where the law of AI and music is being decided.
Why the labels filed a second case
The new complaint explains itself. In the first case, UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 24-cv-11611, the labels say they could identify only “a minuscule, illustrative fraction” of the recordings Suno used, because Suno “concealed the contents of its training data.” According to the complaint, Suno acknowledged in that case that it built its models “by showing the program tens of millions of instances of different kinds of recordings” that “presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs.” The labels say a forensic analysis of Suno’s training data then found millions of their recordings.
They asked to add more than 61,000 works to the original case. On August 18, 2026, according to the new complaint, Judge Saylor denied that request without prejudice, “on the primary basis that the amendment would impact the existing case schedule,” while noting that the labels “are of course entitled to pursue valid claims for copyright infringement, and the magnitude of the alleged infringement is not a defense.” The court concluded that parallel cases were the better route. So the labels filed one. It has been assigned to Judge Saylor.
Who is suing, and what they want
The plaintiffs are UMG Recordings and Capitol Records on the Universal side, and Sony Music Entertainment and nine affiliated labels, including Arista, LaFace, Ultra and Zomba. The defendants are Suno, Inc., which the complaint places at 17 Dunster Street in Cambridge, and ten unnamed “John Doe” defendants who allegedly helped copy the recordings.
Warner Music Group is not a plaintiff this time. The complaint says Suno entered a licensing agreement with “former plaintiff Warner Music Group” in November 2025, and quotes Suno CEO Mikey Shulman: “I don’t think of what we did as a settlement. I think about this much more like a partnership.” It also says Suno has since announced partnerships with BMG and with Believe.
The complaint has three claims:
- Infringement of post-1972 sound recordings under the Copyright Act.
- Infringement of pre-1972 recordings under the Music Modernization Act provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 1401, which extended federal remedies to older recordings.
- Circumvention of technological measures under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, based on the allegation that Suno “stream ripped” recordings from YouTube in circumvention of YouTube’s protections.
The labels ask for an injunction and statutory damages “up to $150,000 per work infringed.” Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), a court may increase statutory damages to as much as $150,000 per work when infringement is willful. Across 60,202 recordings, the arithmetic is the reason these cases matter to the industry. A damages award depends on findings a court has not made.
The artists’ case: the judge lets it proceed
The independent artists’ case is Justice v. Suno, Inc., No. 25-cv-11739, a proposed class action. The plaintiffs allege Suno downloaded their songs from YouTube, copied them to train its model, and generates music substantially similar to them. Suno moved to dismiss three of the four counts.
Judge Saylor’s ruling, which we read in full:
- Derivative works claim survives. Suno argued the artists had to point to a specific Suno output that copied one of their songs. The court disagreed: “there is no categorical requirement that a plaintiff must produce the derivative work at the motion to dismiss stage.” The amended complaint cited about 100 examples of Suno outputs that allegedly replicate songs owned by others, and alleged Suno “intentionally structured its AI model to generate AI Music designed to mirror the very songs it trained on.” That was enough, at this stage, to make it plausible that Suno had also produced outputs similar to the plaintiffs’ songs. “Whether plaintiffs can show such outputs after full discovery is a question for another day.”
- DMCA claim survives. On the YouTube “rolling cipher” allegation, the court followed its August 18, 2026 ruling in the labels’ case, which found that allegations Suno circumvented YouTube’s rolling cipher plausibly stated a claim, while saying the final answer “will require a developed factual record.”
- Tennessee claim dismissed. The artists pleaded a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, then said in their opposition that citing it was “inadvertent” and they meant a common-law unfair competition claim. The court held that an opposition brief is “not a proper vehicle” to amend a complaint, and dismissed the count.
None of this decides whether Suno infringed. A motion to dismiss assumes the complaint’s allegations are true and asks only whether they state a claim. The labels’ new complaint anticipates a fair use defense, which would be decided later on evidence, and argues that none of the four fair use factors favors Suno.
How many Suno cases are in Boston
More than these two. A search of federal court records on CourtListener shows at least nine cases against Suno filed in the District of Massachusetts since 2024, including Reyna v. Suno (June 2026), S.A. Jamendo v. Suno (June 2026), Pilavian v. Suno and Rugnetta v. Suno (July 2026), Lowery v. Suno (August 2026) and Beckham v. Suno (September 2026). They are spread across several judges. We have not reviewed those complaints, and they may raise different claims.
What to watch
- Suno’s response to the new complaint, and whether the two label cases are coordinated.
- Class certification in Justice, which will decide whether independent artists proceed as a group.
- Any ruling on fair use, which would be the first major answer in this district to whether training a music model on copyrighted recordings is lawful.
Frequently asked questions
Why are the record labels suing Suno again?
Because the judge in their 2024 case refused on August 18, 2026 to let them add more than 61,000 works, mainly because it would disrupt the case schedule, and said parallel cases were the better route. The new complaint, filed September 18, 2026, asserts 60,202 recordings.
Where is Suno based?
According to the complaint, Suno, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 17 Dunster Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That is why the lawsuits are in federal court in Boston.
Did a judge rule against Suno?
Only at the pleading stage. In Justice v. Suno, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV denied Suno’s motion to dismiss the artists’ derivative works and DMCA claims on August 20, 2026, and dismissed a Tennessee consumer protection claim. The court has not decided whether Suno infringed or whether fair use applies.
How much could Suno owe?
The labels seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement, the maximum under 17 U.S.C. section 504(c)(2). Whether any damages are awarded, and how much, depends on findings the court has not made.
Is Warner Music suing Suno?
Not in the new case. The complaint says Warner, a plaintiff in the 2024 case, entered a licensing agreement with Suno in November 2025.
Sources: Complaint, UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14275 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 18, 2026), read in full; Memorandum and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Justice v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-11739-FDS (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2026), read in full; docket information from CourtListener. The August 18, 2026 order in No. 24-cv-11611 is described as quoted in the new complaint and the Justice order; it was not separately reviewed. 17 U.S.C. section 504 read at law.cornell.edu. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly first reported the Justice ruling on September 28, 2026. General information, not legal advice.