Universal and Warner move to dismiss the American Federation of Musicians AI suit

Universal Music Group and Warner Records have asked a court to dismiss the American Federation of Musicians case over artificial intelligence licensing, arguing that the union has already conceded the point that decides it.

The union's claim is straightforward enough. Recordings its members played on were licensed to the AI companies Suno and Udio, the AFM says, without the musicians on those recordings being paid or properly notified. Its case rests on the new use clause of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement, which obliges a label to compensate performers and inform the union whenever a recording is put to a purpose the agreement did not anticipate.

The labels do not argue that AI licensing is an old use. They argue that the clause cannot be enforced, because the machinery it depends on was never built. Article 21(a), UMG's lawyers wrote in a filing reported by Music Business Worldwide, does not state a rate of its own: it imports one from a separate AFM agreement covering the new purpose, and for AI use no such separate agreement exists.

The filing then points at the union's own words. At a pre-motion conference on 21 July, US District Judge Edgardo Ramos asked whether an agreement of that kind existed for AI. According to the transcript quoted by the labels, AFM counsel Eyad Asad answered that there is no underlying agreement for AI use, and that the union conceded it. "That concession ends this case," UMG's lawyers wrote, adding that discovery cannot create an agreement that was never made.

Put plainly, the labels are saying a payment obligation measured against a contract that does not exist is no obligation at all. Whether that is a technicality or the whole point of how union rates work is the question the judge now has.

The case sits inside a much wider fight. Last year Warner, Sony Music Entertainment and Universal all sued Suno and Udio over copyright infringement they described as being on an almost unimaginable scale. Warner then settled its own action by signing a licensing deal with Suno, a deal Pitchfork reported would let artists and songwriters who opt in keep control over their music and likeness.

That sequence is why the AFM case matters beyond its own docket. A label can settle with an AI firm and license a catalogue; the people who actually played on those recordings have no seat at that table unless a clause like Article 21(a) gives them one.

Performers have been going to court on their own behalf in the meantime. Earlier this month Jason Isbell and David Lowery filed a class action against Suno built on identity and publicity rights rather than copyright, and last month Suno lost a copyright case to the German licensing body GEMA over songs including Boney M's Daddy Cool and Lou Bega's Mambo No. 5, a ruling that now obliges other AI firms to license GEMA's repertoire.

No hearing date or ruling on the dismissal motion has been reported.