Musicians' Union Sues Warner & Universal Over Secret AI Licensing Deals With Suno and Udio

Musicians' Union Sues Universal and Warner Over Secret AI Licensing Deals With Suno and Udio (2026)

Title: AFM Musicians' Union Sues Warner & Universal Over Secret AI Licensing Deals

Slug: musicians-union-sues-universal-warmer-ai-licensing-suno-udio-2026

Category: News

Target keyword: musicians union sues record labels AI licensing

Secondary keywords: AFM lawsuit Universal Warner AI, Suno Udio settlement musician compensation, AI music licensing union rights, SRLA new use provision AI, American Federation of Musicians v Universal Music Group

---

On June 5, 2026, a new front opened in the AI copyright wars — and this one pits musicians against their own record labels. The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), the largest musicians' union in the world, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group, accusing them of secretly licensing AFM musicians' recordings to AI companies Suno and Udio without compensating the artists who made those recordings in the first place.

The complaint, obtained from CourtListener (Docket No. 1:26-cv-04760), reveals a striking contradiction at the heart of the music industry's relationship with generative AI. In June 2024, Universal and Warner were among the labels that sued Suno and Udio for copyright infringement, arguing that those AI companies had trained their models on copyrighted sound recordings without permission. In those lawsuits, the labels warned that AI was "replacing the work of human artists with massive quantities of AI created sounds" that would "substantially dilute the royalty pools paid out to artists."

Fast forward to late 2025: the same labels settled those very lawsuits with the AI companies. And according to the AFM's complaint, those settlements didn't just resolve past infringement claims — they created new licensing deals allowing Suno and Udio to use the music catalogs going forward, both retroactively and prospectively.

The key allegation? The labels collected "significant compensation" from these deals — and didn't share a dime with the musicians.

The "New Use" Clause: A Contractual Safeguard From the 1940s Meets Generative AI

At the center of the AFM's case is a provision in its collective bargaining agreement called the Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA). The SRLA contains a "new use" provision that dates back in some form to the 1940s — long before anyone imagined AI-generated music.

Here's what it does: if a record label wants to license recordings for a purpose not covered by the existing agreement, the label must notify the union and compensate the individual musicians who performed on those recordings. It's a forward-looking protection designed precisely for moments when technology creates entirely new ways to exploit recorded music.

The AFM argues that generative AI training is exactly that — a new use. And the labels, they say, didn't just avoid paying musicians. They "refused to provide information to the AFM about which recordings and whose work is being licensed," according to the complaint.

"While the Defendants protected their own interests and created a significant source of new revenue with the retrospective settlements and prospective licenses, they have refused to compensate the musicians whose work — created with their own instruments and through their talent, creativity, and hard work — is fed into AI machines for profit."

This is a breach of contract claim, not a copyright claim. And that distinction matters.

Breach of Contract, Not Copyright Infringement

The AFM is not arguing that Suno or Udio violated copyright law. That was the labels' argument in 2024 — and they settled. The AFM is arguing something more straightforward: the labels had a contractual obligation to their musicians, and they broke it.

The complaint doesn't name Suno or Udio as defendants. It targets Warner and Universal directly, asserting violations of:

1. Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) — for breach of the collective bargaining agreement

2. Breach of contract under New York common law

The AFM seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorneys' fees. More importantly, the union is demanding that the labels disclose which recordings were licensed and account for all compensation received from the AI deals.

This is a strategic choice. Copyright cases about AI training are slogging through courts with uncertain outcomes. The fair use question remains unsettled. But a breach of contract claim based on a clear contractual provision? That may be a faster, cleaner path to relief for musicians.

The Irony: Labels Warned About AI "Replacing Human Artists"

The complaint leans heavily on the labels' own words from their 2024 lawsuits against Suno and Udio to make its case.

In its June 2024 complaint against Suno, Universal argued that the AI company's model was "replacing the work of human artists with massive quantities of AI created sounds." It warned that this would "substantially dilute the royalty pools paid out to artists."

In its October 2025 amended complaint against Udio, Universal went further: AI tools "threaten enduring and irreparable harm to recording artists, record labels, and [the] music industry."

Yet after receiving "significant compensation" from settlements — the AFM complaint says — the labels "are allowing those same AI companies to use the work of AFM-represented musicians to do exactly what they warned about: Training AI models to generate supposedly 'new' sound recordings derived from music ingested into their models."

The AFM's legal team, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, essentially turned the labels' own courtroom arguments against them. If AI training really does threaten artists' livelihoods — as the labels themselves argued — then musicians whose work is being used for that training deserve a cut.

Who Are the Players?

Understanding this case requires knowing who's involved:

| Party | Role |

|---|---|

| AFM (American Federation of Musicians) | Largest musicians' union in North America, representing tens of thousands of professional musicians |

| Warner Music Group | One of the "Big Three" record labels, defendant |

| Universal Music Group | Largest record label in the world, defendant |

| Suno | AI music generation company, sued by labels in 2024, settled late 2025 |

| Udio | AI music generation company, also sued by labels in 2024, also settled in late 2025 |

| SRLA | Sound Recording Labor Agreement — the collective bargaining agreement at issue |

Notably, Sony Music — the third of the "Big Three" labels — is absent from this complaint. The AFM's lawsuit only targets Warner and Universal for now, though the complaint's logic could easily extend to any label that licensed music to AI companies without sharing the proceeds with musicians.

What This Means for Musicians

This case could set a critical precedent for how AI licensing revenues flow — or don't flow — to the people who actually create the music.

The Immediate Stakes

• Transparency: The AFM is demanding labels disclose exactly which recordings they licensed to AI companies. Musicians currently have no way of knowing if their work is being used to train AI models.
• Compensation: If the SRLA's "new use" provision applies to AI training, labels could owe substantial back payments — and ongoing royalties — to session musicians, not just featured artists.
• Precedent for Other Unions: SAG-AFTRA has already negotiated AI protections for actors. The AFM's case, if successful, could establish that collective bargaining agreements trump unilateral AI licensing decisions by employers.

Session Musicians Are Especially Vulnerable

This case matters particularly for session musicians — the unsung backbone of recorded music. Unlike featured artists who may have the leverage to negotiate individual deals, session musicians depend on collective bargaining. If labels can license entire catalogs to AI companies without triggering the "new use" clause, session musicians could see their life's work used to train AI systems that compete with them — with zero compensation.

How This Connects to the Broader AI Copyright Landscape

The AFM v. Warner and Universal lawsuit sits at the intersection of several ongoing developments:

The Suno and Udio Lawsuits (2024-2025)

In June 2024, the major labels (Universal, Warner, Sony) sued both Suno and Udio for massive copyright infringement, alleging the AI companies had trained on "essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet." The labels sought damages up to $150,000 per infringed work.

Those cases settled in late 2025 — and those settlements are the catalyst for the AFM's lawsuit. The union alleges the settlements included licensing terms that the labels never disclosed to musicians.

The SRLA "New Use" — A 1940s Provision for a 2026 Problem

The SRLA's new use clause reflects the music industry's long history of technological disruption. It was designed for moments like this: when a new way of exploiting recordings emerges that the original agreement didn't contemplate. The AFM has previously invoked it for innovations like streaming and digital downloads.

Now generative AI joins that list. The question for the court: does training an AI model on a sound recording constitute a distinct "use" of that recording? The AFM says yes. The labels haven't filed their response yet, but they are likely to argue that AI training is covered by existing royalty frameworks — or that the SRLA doesn't extend to licensing for AI model training.

The FTC's Enforcement of the TAKE IT DOWN Act

The timing also coincides with the FTC's recent enforcement of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which mandates platforms remove AI-generated deepfakes. While that law targets non-consensual intimate imagery, it signals a broader regulatory trend: lawmakers and agencies are increasingly willing to impose obligations on companies that profit from AI-generated content at the expense of human creators.

The SAG-AFTRA Precedent

SAG-AFTRA's 2026 deal established specific AI protections for performers, including consent and compensation requirements for digital replicas. The AFM lawsuit could push the music industry toward similar protections — but through litigation rather than negotiation.

What's Next in the Case

As of June 7, 2026, the case is in its earliest stages:

• Filed: June 5, 2026 (Southern District of New York)
• Status: Complaint submitted, summons requested
• Defendants: Warner Music Group Corp. and Universal Music Group, Inc.
• Next Steps: The defendants must file answers or motions to dismiss within 21 days of being served. Given the legal resources available to both sides, expect vigorous motion practice.

The case has been assigned to the Southern District of New York — a venue with extensive experience in both music industry and labor law disputes. No judge has been assigned yet.

Why This Case Matters Beyond the Music Industry

The AFM's lawsuit could have implications for any industry where workers create copyrighted content under collective bargaining agreements:

• Publishing: Authors' unions could demand transparency and compensation if publishers license books to AI companies
• Film and TV: Crew unions could challenge studios that license footage for AI training
• Journalism: News guilds could push for "new use" compensation if media companies sell archives to AI firms
• Software: Developer unions (rare but growing) could assert rights over code used to train AI coding assistants

The core question is universal: when an employer profits from licensing creative work to AI companies, who gets paid — the employer, or the people who actually did the work?

Key Takeaways

• The American Federation of Musicians is suing Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group for breach of contract over AI licensing deals with Suno and Udio
• The labels sued Suno and Udio for copyright infringement in 2024, then settled in late 2025 — allegedly on terms that included AI training licenses but no musician compensation
• The AFM invokes the SRLA's "new use" clause, a decades-old provision requiring labels to compensate musicians when recordings are used in new ways
• The case is a breach of contract claim, not a copyright claim — which could make it easier and faster to resolve
• If successful, it could set a precedent for how AI licensing revenues must be shared with creative workers across all industries

---

This article was published on June 7, 2026 and covers legal developments as of that date. Case developments may have occurred since publication.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal assistance regarding AI copyright or labor issues, consult a qualified attorney.