Photo Credit: Laurenz Heymann
Another day, another subpoena-clash development: Apple is once again pushing back against Suno’s demand for information about its licensing discussions, “anti-AI deal terms,” and more.
Apple doubled down on its subpoena opposition in a detail-oriented filing yesterday, after initially moving to quash in mid-October. DMN’s been tracking the courtroom confrontation – one of multiple sub-disputes in the non-Warner majors’ Suno lawsuits – from the get-go.
But just to recap, Suno is seeking a deposition covering, among other topics, Apple Music’s licensing talks with Universal Music and Sony Music; the “long-term commercial viability of Apple Music” without the relevant majors’ catalogs; and communications between Apple, the plaintiffs, and the RIAA about the copyright case.
As many already know from our exclusive reporting, the ask isn’t sitting right with Apple, which on October 13th moved to quash the subpoena. And now, with Suno’s retort dating back to last month’s end, Apple has submitted a firmly worded reply.
Admittedly, several of the angles therein will sound familiar to those who’ve been following the legal battle: “Suno is seeking overbroad discovery” from a variety of parties, and Apple, having responded to six total subpoenas encompassing “more than 90 emails and more than 10 verbal conferrals” from both sides during the past year, believes that a hard limit is therefore in order.
“After more than a year of cooperation, Apple respectfully suggests that the time has come to set a limit on the reasonable scope of third-party discovery here,” the company summed up.
Not stopping there, the non-party also attempted to refute Suno’s main arguments, maintaining first that Apple Music’s ongoing Universal Music and Sony Music licensing conversations, whether extending to “an anti-dilution arrangement” for the royalty pool or not, are “irrelevant.”
“Testimony about whether an anti-dilution arrangement is being discussed would add nothing but speculation about a deal that does not exist,” Apple wrote, proceeding to downplay the significance of any potential AI-related licensing negotiations.
And on the copyright-misuse front – referring to the allegation that the plaintiff majors are capitalizing on their high-value catalogs to obtain anti-AI concessions from DSPs – it’s the plaintiffs’ conduct, not the response of Apple, that’s important, according to the filing.
“Because copyright misuse turns on Plaintiffs’ conduct, Apple’s internal view of the value of Plaintiffs’ catalogs reflects nothing about whether Plaintiffs improperly used their catalogs,” the text reads.
Finally, echoing arguments that we’ve seen in different subpoena showdowns, Apple emphasized the sought details’ availability elsewhere as well as the possible commercial harms associated with turning over the info.
“Those harms are especially acute here because Suno would have Apple disclose its bargaining positions to the very counterparty across the table in such negotiations,” Apple vented.
“While the protective order may offer some protection during discovery, it cannot ensure that the information stays protected at trial or later in the case, where Apple, as a non-party, will have little insight into or control over its use.”
Now, all eyes are on the court’s ruling – though a concrete development doesn’t appear to be imminent. With Apple unopposed to the move, the presiding magistrate judge today transferred the quash motion to Massachusetts, where the main UMG v. Suno lawsuits are unfolding.
Leave a Reply