The Gulf of Corryvreckan maelstrom in Scotland. Photo Credit: Walter Baxter
With a UMG v. Suno subpoena maelstrom upon us, here’s a closer look at some of the document and testimony demands’ many interesting angles – and the disputes’ bigger-picture significance in the AI litigation arena.
We’ve covered the subpoena clashes from the outset, and the available evidence suggests that the list will continue growing. Longtime Suno investor Matrix, one of at least seven Series D participants facing subpoenas, pushed back against a production request from the plaintiffs, for instance.
And while the VC has yet to fire off a motion to quash, fellow non-parties including Lightspeed, which led Suno’s $125 million Series B in May 2024, have done so. On the opposite end of the subpoena battle, Apple has moved to quash a subpoena from Suno, itself having targeted the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) with a motion to compel.
Put differently, much is happening in UMG v. Suno – two of the many ongoing copyright complaints against the AI upstart, which is simultaneously grappling with suits from Round Hill, Reservoir, David Lowery, indie artists including Tony Justice, Gerencia 360, SOCAN, and others yet.
Against this backdrop, with thousands of pages flying across the actions and subpoenas, it’s easy to overlook noteworthy elements. Admittedly, the apparent overlap between the cases and the subpoena disagreements doesn’t help here.
These clear-cut similarities aside, each of the subpoenas also explores unique angles – in part because of the timing associated with investors’ funding-round participation. As emphasized by Bond Capital, which led Suno’s $400 million Series D this past June, the older of the majors’ cases kicked off some two years before it (Bond) took an interest in the AI music platform.
The way Universal Music and Sony Music see the situation, however, that’s more of a reason for the court to order Bond to disclose certain internal documents concerning its assessment of Suno’s financials and long-term outlook.
“An investor leading a multi-hundred million dollar funding round in Suno in 2026 necessarily asked about those (existing copyright infringement) claims, and Suno necessarily answered,” UMG and SME wrote.
“What Suno told Bond about its training practices, its exposure in this litigation, and any changes it made to how it sources data, as well as Bond’s records and analyses of those conversations, is direct evidence of Suno’s knowledge and of whether its continued conduct reflects a good-faith belief in its lawfulness or a calculated acceptance of risk,” they continued.
Running with the point, the non-Warner majors say Bond did, in fact, agree to turn over “all communications” with Suno concerning the platform’s legal risks and possible music-market impact.
That makes the labels’ “narrowed” document requests even more interesting: Sony Music and Universal Music are still seeking Bond’s Suno “draft investment memoranda” and due diligence materials.
Additionally, they’re looking to obtain any summaries of investment-related calls and meetings (which stood out during related hearings) as well as internal “projections concerning the market for Suno’s service or its actual or potential impact on the music industry” to boot.
Put differently, it’ll be worth closely tracking the litigating majors’ Bond subpoena in particular. Notwithstanding the distinct possibility of significant redactions, even references to the documents’ details could afford us valuable insights and takeaways in the long run.
On the opposite side of the courtroom confrontation, thanks to our exclusive coverage, it’s not a secret that Suno is plowing full steam ahead with document and deposition demands.
To be sure, the platform is seeking a mountain of label-specific play-volume data from the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) and, as underscored by Apple’s opposition, from DSPs themselves to boot.
Regarding what all this means in the initially mentioned bigger picture, many are aware that a lot is riding on the central fair use question.
Especially when it comes to the fourth factor, meaning the use’s impact on the market for and value of the protected works in question, subpoena disclosures could help either side score a precedent-setting win. And given AI infringement suits’ common ground, the victory’s effects could reverberate throughout the wider copyright landscape.