Suno Is Blocking UMG and Sony From Seeing Its Warner Settlement. Here’s Why That Matters.

UMG and Sony’s counter-argument is that the Warner deal is not simply a litigation settlement but a forward-looking commercial arrangement, and should therefore be treated differently. Their lawyers wrote in an April 20 objection: “Warner and Suno could have settled Warner’s legal claims and moved on. But that is not what they did. They also executed a go-forward license for Suno to use Warner’s copyrighted sound recordings as training data for new AI models.” The labels argued that Levenson’s ruling incorrectly treated the agreement as purely backward-looking, when its commercial structure, which includes a licensing arrangement for future model training, makes it directly relevant to establishing what a market-rate license for AI training data should cost. They also argued the licensing fee reflects the value Suno places on using high-quality copyrighted works to train its models, and is therefore relevant to the damages calculation in the active case.

Suno’s legal team rejected that framing on multiple grounds. Even if the Warner deal has some relevance to damages, the brief argues, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 prohibits using settlement agreements for that purpose, rendering the labels’ relevance argument “merely academic.” Suno also pushed back on the labels’ claim that the agreement could reveal “specific functions for Suno’s future models” or outline Suno’s plans to remove their recordings from its training data, calling those claims “pure speculation.”

The procedural stakes here extend beyond this specific discovery dispute. Sony’s fair-use cases against Suno in Massachusetts and against Udio in the Southern District of New York are expected to produce a pivotal ruling in summer 2026 that could set legal precedent for every AI music company. If UMG and Sony succeed in obtaining the Warner settlement terms, they would gain insight into both the financial value Suno assigned to a major label license and the specific commitments Suno made regarding future model training. That information could materially strengthen their damages claim and their negotiating position heading into any potential settlement of their own. Suno’s resistance is not just about confidentiality; it is about preventing the two remaining plaintiffs from gaining a structural advantage at a critical stage of litigation that could determine the future of AI music licensing across the entire industry. Courthouse News Service

The district court judge must now decide whether to accept, modify, or overturn Magistrate Judge Levenson’s ruling. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate’s decision only if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law,” a standard that gives magistrate rulings significant deference. Suno’s brief argues that UMG and Sony cannot identify any clear error in Levenson’s reasoning, and that their objections amount to a request for the court to “substitute their preferred outcome for his reasoned analysis.” Whether the district court agrees will determine how much of Suno’s legal and commercial playbook UMG and Sony get to see before the case goes to trial.