Independent Musicians Join Class Actions Against AI Music Companies Suno and Udio

A growing wave of independent artists, songwriters and producers has filed federal class‑action lawsuits against AI‑music platforms Suno and Udio, claiming the companies used their copyrighted work to train generative models without permission.

The suits, filed in October 2025, seek both the disclosure of the training data used by the platforms and monetary compensation for the alleged infringement. In the Northern District of California, the Suno case names a proposed class of independent musicians whose recordings were allegedly incorporated into Suno’s datasets. The Udio suit, also a federal class action, is moving toward the discovery phase.

Both cases were brought by Delgado Entertainment Law, headed by attorney Krystle Delgado, and joined by the larger firm Hagens Berman. Delgado’s firm has leveraged a YouTube channel to explain the allegations, stating that Suno and Udio “committed copyright infringement, and now they owe you money.” The videos highlight that independent artists have historically been excluded from negotiations with AI companies and that the class action offers a collective avenue for redress.

According to public statements, Suno admitted in 2024 to scraping and duplicating tens of millions of “publicly available” songs for training its AI models. Most of those songs are believed to belong to independent creators. Udio has faced similar allegations, with critics noting that the platform’s training data may include copyrighted music.

The lawsuits were accelerated by an investigation published by The Atlantic in June 2026, which revealed that AI music companies had accessed vast collections of music for training purposes. The investigation triggered a surge in plaintiffs; the number of artists who signed up for the class action doubled within 72 hours, bringing the total to several thousand. Artists can still register at indieailawsuit.com.

Major record labels Sony, Warner and Universal have also filed separate lawsuits against Suno and Udio. Those cases have not yet compelled the AI companies to disclose their training data. In contrast, the independent‑artist class actions specifically seek discovery of the datasets, which is essential for proving that the plaintiffs’ works were used.

The discovery phase is expected to begin in the coming months. Court filings indicate that the Udio suit is moving toward discovery, while the Suno case remains in the pre‑filing stage. If the courts order the AI companies to release their training data, the plaintiffs will be able to identify the specific songs that were used and calculate damages.

The lawsuits intersect with legislative efforts aimed at protecting creators from unauthorized AI training. Bills such as the COPIED Act, the TRAIN Act and the CLEAR Act are under consideration in Congress. These measures would make it unlawful to use copyrighted material for AI training without permission and would provide a statutory framework for compensation.

Industry observers note that the class actions could set a precedent for how AI‑generated music companies handle copyrighted content. The outcome may influence future licensing agreements and the development of AI tools that respect intellectual‑property rights.

As of now, the lawsuits remain pending. The next steps will involve court‑ordered discovery and potential negotiations. Independent musicians who believe their work was used in Suno or Udio’s training models are encouraged to join the class action through the website provided by Delgado Entertainment Law.

The legal actions underscore the growing tension between the rapid expansion of AI music technology and the rights of creators who supply the content that fuels these systems. The resolution of these cases will likely shape the legal landscape for AI training and music copyright for years to come.