Time will tell, though the current evidence supports answering in the affirmative. Of course, third-party subpoenas aren’t exactly unprecedented in ugly (and decidedly complex) legal battles.
Even so – and despite prior disclosures from Udio stakeholder a16z and others – it seems safe to say that something of a subpoena-strategy shift is underway.
To be sure, the litigating majors (meaning Universal Music and Sony Music against Suno and the latter major against Udio) have fired off motions to compel against DistroKid as well as Suno stakeholders Bond Capital, Lightspeed, Menlo Ventures, and ex-Menlo principal C.C. Gong.
(Technically, Lightspeed filed a motion to quash before any motion to compel materialized, but you get the idea.)
As we’ve broken down at length, the requests – targeting documents pertaining to the entities’ professional relationships with Suno brass, discussions and knowledge of training-related copyright liability, gen AI music’s market-dilution risks, and a whole lot else – could produce findings that prove consequential in virtually every copyright suit against Suno.
Additionally, based on the present demands’ broad nature, the plaintiffs would seemingly obtain specifics about Suno’s Warner Music, Believe, and BMG licensing pacts. (It isn’t a secret that Universal Music and Sony Music have had their eyes on the agreements for some time now.)
From Menlo, for instance, the non-Warner majors are seeking “ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO copyright law in relation to SUNO” – an ask that, along with a similar request concerning their recordings, would presumably shed light on the terms at hand.
As such, it’ll be worth tracking the corresponding motions to compel from here, especially given past revelations’ across-the-board litigation significance. Both Round Hill and Reservoir Media cited The Atlantic’s searchable AI Watchdog training database in their recently submitted Suno complaints, for instance.
As we exclusively reported, the MLC doesn’t appear to be in a hurry to turn over the information, which, in Suno’s and Udio’s view, could demonstrate that AI outputs aren’t actually diverting material streams and royalties from proper music.
Furthermore, in pushing back against the request over months-long talks, the MLC cited, among other things, DSPs’ alleged opposition to providing the details. Though Suno returned fire by alleging the absence of written concerns on the services’ end, that they’d oppose the disclosure doesn’t seem like a stretch.
Needless to say, the same services are heavily reliant on the majors’ catalogs – and are therefore eager to maintain positive professional relationships with the rightsholders. Put differently, is AI audio really raking in the royalties?
Suno would like an answer to the question, which leads us to yet another subpoena clash: Apple is looking to quash a deposition demand for all manner of information about Apple Music’s AI royalties and policies.
Among the many other topics Suno is attempting to learn about: The service’s “contractual provisions guaranteeing minimum royalties paid” to Universal Music and Sony Music; provisions related to gen AI content; royalty-calculation distinctions between AI and non-AI audio; the on-platform prevalence of streaming fraud; and projections of Apple Music’s commercial viability without the plaintiffs’ catalogs.
As for what comes next, the motion to quash (or, alternatively, approve a protective order for) the “irrelevant, overbroad, and disproportionate” subpoena is scheduled for December 1st.
Wherever the cards fall – even if Suno’s motion is denied or redactions hit the documents’ public versions – telling disclosures could well be forthcoming.
