Google Says Uploading to YouTube Consents to AI Training. Independent Artists Say That’s “Outrageous.”

The independent music community’s reaction to that argument has been swift and pointed. Ron Gubitz, executive director of the Music Artists Coalition, called the terms of service “too generic” to constitute informed consent for AI training, telling Billboard: “It was not written with AI training in mind. Consent should be specific and forward-looking, not using a checkbox from however long ago, because that was not the artists’ intent. They were not agreeing to have their music and videos provided as training data for something that could be a competitor for them.” Ian Harrison, CEO of the American Association of Independent Music, described the situation as “troubling,” noting that it applies specifically to user-generated content uploaded directly to YouTube, not the catalog of major labels, which negotiate individual licensing agreements with YouTube that likely include AI-specific guardrails. As UMG CEO Lucian Grainge confirmed on an earnings call last year, the major labels have secured “really important guardrails and protection for our artists and writers around Gen AI content” in their YouTube licensing deals. Independent artists without major label backing have no such protection.

The attorney for the indie artists pursuing the Lyria 3 case, Ross Kimbarovsky of Loevy and Loevy, the same firm behind separate class action lawsuits against Suno and Udio in Illinois, put the artists’ position bluntly: “Google hasn’t shown a single plaintiff ever agreed to its terms of service. And no version of those terms has ever said a word about AI training. Artists put music online to reach listeners, not to hand a four-trillion-dollar company free raw material for a product built to replace them.” The plaintiffs will file opposition papers fighting Google’s motion to dismiss in the coming weeks.

The legal question of whether YouTube’s terms of service actually cover AI training may turn on a doctrine called unconscionability. Music litigator Ken Anderson, who has been following the case, told Billboard he believes the artists may have a credible opening to argue the terms are unenforceable as a “contract of adhesion,” a contract a party has no meaningful choice but to sign. “YouTube is one of the most necessary outlets for anybody who wants to have a career in popular music,” Anderson said. “End of discussion. There is no alternative.” Whether the contract is also “unconscionable,” the second prong required to void it, is a harder call, and Anderson acknowledged the statistical success rate for that argument is low. But the broader implications if Google prevails are significant: if a court finds that uploading to YouTube constitutes a license for AI training, Google would have no need to negotiate bespoke agreements or pay independent artists anything for AI training, and other major platforms with similar terms of service, including Meta, could be inspired to make the same argument about user-generated content on Instagram and Facebook. For the independent music economy built around direct-to-fan distribution and platform-native discovery, the implications extend well beyond one lawsuit.