A growing legal challenge against AI music generators Udio and Suno has gained significant momentum after law firm Hagens Berman announced it is joining forces with Delgado Entertainment Law PLLC to represent independent artists who claim their music was used without permission to train AI models.

The amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on 22 June 2026, alleges that both companies built their music-generation systems using copyrighted songs sourced from streaming and online distribution platforms, including YouTube and Spotify, without obtaining the necessary licenses from rights holders.

According to the lawsuit, the companies allegedly bypassed technological safeguards used by online platforms to access and ingest music content at scale. The filing claims that tens of millions of audio files were used for AI training, with a substantial portion belonging to independent artists.

The case focuses on musicians and producers who have distributed music through streaming services since 2021 and argues that AI-generated songs produced by Udio and Suno directly compete with the very creators whose work was allegedly used to train the systems.

“Independent artists are at the centre of this dispute because they often lack the resources available to major labels and larger rights holders,” the legal teams argue. The complaint describes the alleged conduct as a direct attack on creators who rely on streaming revenue and licensing income to sustain their careers.

The proposed class action is being brought on behalf of independent artists through named plaintiffs Anthony Justice, 5th Wheel Records Inc., and Heartland Publishing LLC.

The lawsuit also highlights the broader economic impact AI-generated music could have on the industry. Spotify recently reported paying out $10 billion in royalties to artists and rights holders, with independent musicians accounting for a significant share of those earnings. Plaintiffs argue that unlicensed AI training threatens that ecosystem by enabling platforms to generate competing content from copyrighted works.

The legal challenge has already cleared an important hurdle. In May 2026, a federal court partially denied Udio’s motion to dismiss, allowing claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to proceed. A separate motion to dismiss filed by Suno remains under review.

For Hagens Berman, the case represents another high-profile dispute at the intersection of intellectual property and artificial intelligence. The firm argues that AI companies cannot rely on broad fair-use claims when copyrighted material has allegedly been copied and repurposed without permission.

If successful, the lawsuits could result in financial compensation for affected artists and potentially force changes to how AI music platforms source and train on copyrighted content in the future.

As legal scrutiny of generative AI continues to intensify, the outcome of these cases could help define where the boundaries lie between innovation and intellectual property rights in the music industry.