News
UMG and Warner reply briefs seek dismissal of AFM Suno/Udio pay suit — no ruling yet
On 11 September 2026 UMG and Warner Records/Atlantic filed reply briefs in S.D.N.Y. seeking dismissal of the AFM suit over Suno/Udio licenses. MBW reported on 17 September. The labels say the union conceded at the 21 July conference that no underlying AI agreement exists, so SRLA Article 21(a) owes nothing. No ruling. Not legal advice.
What happened
On Friday 11 September 2026 UMG and Warner Records / Atlantic filed reply briefs in S.D.N.Y. (No. 1:26-cv-04760-ER, Judge Edgardo Ramos) seeking dismissal of the AFM suit over Suno/Udio licenses. MBW reported on 17 September. There is no dismissal order.
What changed
AFM’s 4 September opposition said SRLA Article 21(a) is reasonably susceptible to more than one reading. The replies close dismissal briefing. That is not a ruling. UMG writes that at the 21 July conference union counsel Eyad Asad conceded there is no underlying agreement for AI use, so a payment obligation measured by a nonexistent agreement is none. Warner says musicians already received SRLA base session scale, that AI rates belong in ongoing CBA talks, and asks for dismissal with prejudice. Both replies reject the ambiguity argument.
Whose work this changes
For commercial producers shipping YouTube, game, or streaming BGM on major-label training-license models, extra session pay and credit stay unsettled. A licensed-model export does not mean performer-side pay is cleared. The labels’ position is that rates belong in the next SRLA talks, not this court.
Do this today
Do not write “session extras settled” on label-partnered Suno/Udio jobs. Hold credit copy until a dismissal order or the next CBA update.
Sources
MBW (17 September 2026); UMG reply (ECF 51, 11 September); Warner reply (ECF 52, same day). Clickable URLs are in the source list at the end of the article.
Source: Music Business Worldwide