AI music generator Suno is fighting back against copyright infringement claims from independent artists – with a bold legal argument that could reshape the AI music debate.
The indie artist class action lawsuit – filed by Anthony Justice and 5th Wheel Records in June 2025 – specifically targets the impact of AI training on the music of independent artists.
Yet in a motion to dismiss filed in federal court on August 18, Suno argues that the indie artist lawsuit “fails as a matter of law” and should be dismissed.
That’s because, it says, music made on Suno doesn’t actually sample existing recordings – regardless of what music was used to train its AI model.
This represents a potentially game-changing legal strategy: Suno claims that even if its AI learned from copyrighted songs, the outputs it generates are entirely new sounds that cannot infringe existing recordings under copyright law.
Suno’s filing, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here.
The motion represents the latest salvo in ongoing legal battles over AI training on copyrighted music, with Suno already defending against a separate lawsuit filed by major labels Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group in June 2024.
That RIAA-backed lawsuit remains active and focuses solely on fair use arguments around AI training.
Suno argues indies’ lawsuit introduces legally flawed claims
Suno’s motion argues that the independent artist case is essentially a copycat lawsuit that follows the RIAA case – but adds a problematic new legal theory.
Unlike the ongoing RIAA case, which focuses solely on whether AI training practices are legal, Justice and other independent artists are trying to argue that specific songs generated by Suno’s AI (‘outputs’) substantially copy their original recordings.
At the heart of Suno’s argument is Section 114(b) of the Copyright Act, which has special protection rules for sound recordings that are different from all other types of copyrighted works.
“Plaintiffs would need to allege that the output did not merely sound similar or even identical to the original, but that it actually contained a ‘sample’ from the original, in the manner of a collage… that is categorically not how Suno’s tool works. It exclusively generates new sounds, rather than stitching together samples.”
Suno motion to dismiss
Suno’s lawyers argue: “What [the Copyright Act stipulation] means for this litigation is that in order to plead that a given output of Suno’s AI tool infringed the rights in one of the works-in-suit, Plaintiffs would need to allege that the output did not merely sound similar or even identical to the original, but that it actually contained a ‘sample’ from the original, in the manner of a collage.”
The filing emphasizes: “But… that is categorically not how Suno’s tool works. It exclusively generates new sounds, rather than stitching together samples.”
It reiterates: “The only way a new recording can infringe the rights in a pre-existing one [under the US Copyright Act] is if it borrows the actual sounds of the original… that is not how Suno’s tool works at all, as Plaintiffs well know. No Suno output contains anything like a ‘sample’ from a recording in the training set, so no Suno output can infringe the rights in anything in the training set, as a matter of law.”
This technical distinction forms the core of Suno’s bold legal argument that its AI-generated music cannot legally infringe existing sound recordings, regardless of how similar the outputs might sound to copyrighted works – and regardless of what music was used to train its AI model.
Significantly, Suno’s filing highlights two recent federal court victories for AI companies on fair use grounds, noting that “nine days after this Complaint was filed, the first federal court to address that overarching issue decided on summary judgment that using millions of copyrighted books to train a generative AI model was fair use.”
The motion references the June 2025 ruling in Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, where a California federal judge found AI training to be protected fair use, followed by a similar decision in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms.
U.S. Copyright Office report cited in original lawsuit
The independent artists’ lawsuit relies heavily on a May 2025 report from the U.S. Copyright Office that questions whether AI training on copyrighted works qualifies as fair use, particularly for music generation.
The Copyright Office report states that “the fair use doctrine does not excuse unauthorized training on expressive works (e.g., music) particularly when those works are used to generate substitutional outputs that may replace the originals in the relevant marketplace.”
However, Suno’s motion to dismiss notes that subsequent court rulings have sided with AI companies on fair use grounds, potentially undermining the Copyright Office’s analysis.
In August 2024, both Suno and Udio argued that their use of copyrighted materials fell under fair use protections while acknowledging they trained their models on copyrighted recordings.
The broader legal battle over AI music generation continues to unfold across multiple federal courts, with the outcome likely to shape how the music industry approaches licensing and partnership deals with generative AI platforms going forward.
Suno is also facing a copyright lawsuit from Germany’s GEMA collection society, filed in January 2025, adding to its international legal challenges.
Despite the controversies, Suno continues to develop its platform, recently launching V4 with improved audio quality and naming Timbaland as a strategic advisor.Music Business Worldwide
