Suno wants Apple to explain under oath whether Apple Music could run without songs from Universal Music Group and Sony Music. The AI music firm is fighting Apple's attempt to block its questions, turning a copyright lawsuit into a dispute over how much power major labels have.
Apple isn't being sued, though. It argues that Suno's demands go far beyond what the case needs and could expose private business deals. The company has already supplied data covering millions of tracks in response to several legal requests.
But Suno says the labels made Apple Music relevant by claiming AI tracks hurt their market share and streaming income. Its lawyers want to test those claims using facts from the platform itself.
Four issues remain in dispute. Suno wants details about label licensing talks, Apple's ability to operate without either catalog, fraud on its streaming service, and messages exchanged with the labels or the RIAA about the case.
There's a fair use defense behind part of this. Suno argues that its AI training was lawful, and that the court should examine whether it caused real harm to music sales and royalties.
Royalty deals matter here. Suno claims some label contracts offer guaranteed payments or protect earnings from AI content. Apple, however, says it does not exclude AI-made tracks from its royalty pool at present.
Universal executive Michael Nash had told investors that AI music was not causing a major revenue loss for UMG. He also pointed to Apple removing 2 billion fake streams, though Suno wants Apple to explain how much fraud actually involved AI.
Then there's Suno's claim of copyright misuse. Its argument is that major labels may use their essential music catalogs to press streaming firms into accepting AI restrictions beyond normal copyright rights.
Suno points to Universal pulling music from TikTok during a past dispute over terms that covered AI. It sees that move as relevant to whether a large music catalog gives its holder extra leverage in negotiations.
Apple sees the request differently. It says private licensing talks could be exposed to rivals and that Suno is seeking insight into its business rather than evidence needed for the trial.
For its part, Suno has offered to accept sworn written replies on five other subjects. It also proposes strict secrecy rules for the remaining testimony, keeping sensitive details with outside lawyers.
The legal stakes are high. One lawsuit covers 560 recordings and carries a possible $84 million in damages under the stated per-song limit. A separate case involves another 60,202 tracks, with a theoretical ceiling above $9 billion. Neither figure is an award.
Universal and Sony accuse Suno of using protected music without consent. Suno denies the claims, while Warner Music Group has settled its earlier dispute with the company.
Apple has also built an AI music detection system and shared data on tracks it identified as Suno creations, along with their play counts. For public AI tags, it relies on labels and distributors to mark the content.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi will consider whether Apple must provide a witness for the disputed questions. Her ruling will determine how far Suno can examine the streaming company's dealings with the major labels.
Apple isn't being sued, though. It argues that Suno's demands go far beyond what the case needs and could expose private business deals. The company has already supplied data covering millions of tracks in response to several legal requests.
But Suno says the labels made Apple Music relevant by claiming AI tracks hurt their market share and streaming income. Its lawyers want to test those claims using facts from the platform itself.
Four issues remain in dispute. Suno wants details about label licensing talks, Apple's ability to operate without either catalog, fraud on its streaming service, and messages exchanged with the labels or the RIAA about the case.
There's a fair use defense behind part of this. Suno argues that its AI training was lawful, and that the court should examine whether it caused real harm to music sales and royalties.
Royalty deals matter here. Suno claims some label contracts offer guaranteed payments or protect earnings from AI content. Apple, however, says it does not exclude AI-made tracks from its royalty pool at present.
Universal executive Michael Nash had told investors that AI music was not causing a major revenue loss for UMG. He also pointed to Apple removing 2 billion fake streams, though Suno wants Apple to explain how much fraud actually involved AI.
Then there's Suno's claim of copyright misuse. Its argument is that major labels may use their essential music catalogs to press streaming firms into accepting AI restrictions beyond normal copyright rights.
Suno points to Universal pulling music from TikTok during a past dispute over terms that covered AI. It sees that move as relevant to whether a large music catalog gives its holder extra leverage in negotiations.
Apple sees the request differently. It says private licensing talks could be exposed to rivals and that Suno is seeking insight into its business rather than evidence needed for the trial.
For its part, Suno has offered to accept sworn written replies on five other subjects. It also proposes strict secrecy rules for the remaining testimony, keeping sensitive details with outside lawyers.
The legal stakes are high. One lawsuit covers 560 recordings and carries a possible $84 million in damages under the stated per-song limit. A separate case involves another 60,202 tracks, with a theoretical ceiling above $9 billion. Neither figure is an award.
Universal and Sony accuse Suno of using protected music without consent. Suno denies the claims, while Warner Music Group has settled its earlier dispute with the company.
Apple has also built an AI music detection system and shared data on tracks it identified as Suno creations, along with their play counts. For public AI tags, it relies on labels and distributors to mark the content.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi will consider whether Apple must provide a witness for the disputed questions. Her ruling will determine how far Suno can examine the streaming company's dealings with the major labels.
