Photo Credit: Immo Wegmann
Suno is doubling down on its Apple subpoena push, arguing that the sought information – about Apple Music’s major label licensing talks, “anti-AI deal terms,” and more – is central to its fair use and copyright misuse arguments.
The AI music platform took aim at Apple’s motion to quash in a 24-page opposition filing yesterday. As we broke down earlier this week, the clash represents one of multiple subpoena disputes stemming from the high-stakes UMG v. Suno legal battle.
Meanwhile, evidence – referring in large part to several new but as-yet-uncontested non-party subpoenas – suggests that additional showdowns are forthcoming.
Keeping the focus on the Suno v. Apple confrontation, however, the latter criticized the deposition subpoena as concerning “topics that are irrelevant, overbroad, and disproportionate to the needs of the case.”
Additionally, the same motion to quash called out Suno’s alleged attempt to obtain “the highly confidential, proprietary information of Apple for which” the AI upstart “has not demonstrated a requisite need.”
According to both sides, which spilled plenty of ink recapping the subpoena disagreement, back-and-forth witness and document-production negotiations have been occurring throughout much of 2026.
But the short version is that the current hang-up seemingly pertains to “four modified deposition topics” for which Suno is seeking testimony from Apple Music brass.
As initially highlighted, said topics include Apple Music’s present licensing negotiations with Universal Music and Sony Music as well as any “artificial intelligence initiatives” discussed therein.
Additionally, Suno is targeting information about the DSP’s projected commercial viability without the majors’ catalogs; the prevalence of and typical response to streaming fraud on Apple Music; and all communications between Apple Music and the litigating majors about the case and Suno itself, “with the understanding that Agents of the Plaintiffs (e.g., the RIAA) are in scope.”
Back to Suno’s quash-motion opposition, the defendant framed the information as uniquely available via Apple, covered “by a robust protective order,” and relevant to its fair use defense.
In a nutshell – and as we previously explored in greater detail – the fourth fair use factor concerns the impact of the use on the market for and value of the works in question.
And the way Suno sees the situation, Apple Music’s precise AI contract terms, including “things like guaranteed minimum royalties (which are paid regardless of whether AI content is or is not present in the market) and contractual provisions that specifically exclude AI-generated content from the royalty pool,” are therefore important here.
Less widely discussed is Suno’s copyright misuse defense, or the position that the non-Warner majors “‘have engaged in anticompetitive activities that extend an unlawful monopoly over the production and commercialization of music.’”
On this front, streaming fraud is highly relevant because Universal Music and Sony Music “invoke it to justify their attempts to prevent competition from non-infringing music content, conduct that is at the heart of Suno’s copyright misuse defense,” according to the legal text.
“The core of Suno’s copyright misuse defense is that Plaintiffs use their copyright monopoly and ‘must have’ catalog as a cudgel to extract broad, anti-AI concessions from DSPs,” the filing party added, proceeding to underscore the resulting significance of “negotiations to restrict Apple’s ability to offer AI-generated content, or to steer toward lower-cost content.”
With that, all eyes are on further filings from Apple and, of course, the matter’s December 1st hearing. Separately, amid a subpoena disagreement of their own, Suno and the MLC have proposed a schedule that would set response deadlines into mid-November.
Additionally, as of yesterday, DistroKid has until November 4th to formally oppose Universal Music’s motion to compel compliance with a different subpoena yet.
Leave a Reply