A New York federal judge has denied Sony Music Entertainment‘s request to add 30,442 sound recordings to its copyright infringement lawsuit against AI music platform Udio.
The ruling from Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, which you can read in full here, keeps the case at the 333 works that remain in the case.
Sony filed the motion on May 22 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, saying it had identified the additional recordings after gaining access to Udio‘s training data in discovery.
“Adding more than 30,000 works near the close of document discovery would require substantial additional production and review, generate further disputes, and materially alter the scope of the case before me.”
Alvin K. Hellerstein, US District Judge
“Adding more than 30,000 works near the close of document discovery would require substantial additional production and review, generate further disputes, and materially alter the scope of the case before me,” Hellerstein wrote.
The expanded complaint would have multiplied Udio‘s potential exposure to statutory damages, which US copyright law caps at USD $150,000 per work for willful infringement.
Sony Music, together with its subsidiaries Arista Music and Arista Records, is the sole remaining major-label plaintiff suing Udio.
The lawsuit began in June 2024, when the RIAA sued Udio and rival Suno on behalf of the major labels, accusing the platforms of “mass infringement” of copyright.
Universal Music Group settled with Udio in October 2025, striking a licensing deal for a planned AI music service. Warner Music Group followed in November, resolving its claims and signing a licensing deal of its own. Independent licensing body Merlin reached a deal in January 2026, and publisher Kobalt followed in April.
The most recent development came in June, when the National Music Publishers’ Association announced what its president and CEO David Israelite described as the “first-ever industry-wide licensing deal with a major AI music company.”
Israelite said the deal was the first to “value songs and sound recordings equally” when it comes to AI training, describing Udio as a platform that “allows people to reimagine music using the distinct styles of songwriters and artists.”
“To do this, Udio accepted that it needs permission from publishers and labels,” he said. “And they’ve come to the table to bring creators in as business partners. As it should be.”
Israelite framed the dual-track approach of litigation and licensing as deliberate.
“Litigating against bad AI actors and licensing good AI partners is not in conflict,” he said. “NMPA will do both.”
Sony Music remains the only major music company yet to reach a deal with Udio.
Sony‘s decision to keep litigating places it at odds not just with Udio‘s new partners, but with the broader direction of travel in the industry. The label has, however, been vocal about what it regards as the only acceptable framework for AI companies building music products.
Sony Music Group Chairman Rob Stringer, speaking as Sony joined Spotify and its major-label peers on AI products last year, said that “direct licensing in advance of launching new products is the only appropriate way to build them and demonstrates how a properly functioning market benefits everyone in the ecosystem.”
Addressing investors in mid-2025, Stringer said the company has “actively engaged with more than 800 companies on ethical product creation, content protection and detection, enhancing metadata and audio tuning and translation,” and committed that “we will share all revenues with our artists and songwriters, whether from training or related to outputs, so they are appropriately compensated from day one of this new frontier.”
Sony‘s continuing case is widely expected to produce a pivotal ruling on the fair use question that could set legal precedent for every AI music company.
By choosing to litigate rather than license, Sony is betting that a court ruling will establish the industry standard — a different calculation from the licensing partnerships that Universal and Warner chose to pursue.
In its April answer, Udio argued that any copying of copyrightable expression is “quintessential fair use,” describing its tool as a “back-end technological process, invisible to the public,” that produces a non-infringing new product.
Udio also admitted that it “obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data,” while arguing that downloading publicly available videos is not unlawful.
Udio has further accused the labels of copyright misuse, pointing to “anticompetitive activities that extend an unlawful monopoly” over music.
One part of the case is already moving against the company: on April 15, Hellerstein declined to dismiss Sony‘s claim that Udio circumvented YouTube‘s technological protections, a Digital Millennium Copyright Act allegation.
However, the judge noted that whether those measures ultimately constitute access controls under the statute “requires a greater factual record than the pleadings contain,” leaving the door open for Udio to renew its arguments once the record is developed.
The divergence among the majors has played out as Universal builds what it has called a “licensed and protected” environment with Udio, due to launch in 2026.
A parallel case against Suno, which Sony and Universal are pursuing together in Massachusetts, involves far more works: the labels there are seeking to add 61,026 recordings.
With document production set to close on August 25, both sides are expected to move for summary judgment on whether Udio’s training amounts to fair use.Music Business Worldwide
