Suno has answered Apple, and it has raised the stakes. In a 24-page filing on 27 October 2026 (US time), the AI music company opposed Apple’s bid to quash its deposition subpoena and argued that Apple Music’s contracts with Universal Music Group and Sony Music may hold evidence of “anti-AI concessions” that the labels extract from streaming services.
The argument goes to the heart of the biggest AI music lawsuit in the US. Universal, Capitol Records and Sony are suing Suno for copyright infringement over the recordings used to train its models. Suno says that training is fair use, and it has a second line of defence that rarely gets attention: copyright misuse. Everything below is Suno’s legal argument as reported by Digital Music News. None of it has been tested or decided, and the labels dispute Suno’s claims.
What Suno still wants from Apple Music
Apple, which is not a party to the case, asked a federal court in Northern California on 13 October to quash Suno’s subpoena for testimony from an Apple witness, as we reported in Suno Lawsuit: Apple Fights Suno’s Apple Music Subpoena. Both sides say negotiations over witnesses and documents have run through much of 2026. According to Digital Music News, the dispute now comes down to “four modified deposition topics”:
- Apple Music’s current licensing negotiations with Universal and Sony, including any “artificial intelligence initiatives” discussed in them;
- whether Apple Music could remain commercially viable without the major labels’ catalogues;
- how common streaming fraud is on Apple Music and how Apple typically responds to it; and
- communications between Apple Music and the two labels about the case and Suno, “with the understanding that Agents of the Plaintiffs (e.g., the RIAA) are in scope.”
Suno says this information is uniquely available from Apple and would be protected “by a robust protective order”. Apple sees it differently. Its motion called the topics “irrelevant, overbroad, and disproportionate to the needs of the case” and said Suno wanted “the highly confidential, proprietary information of Apple for which” Suno “has not demonstrated a requisite need.”
The fair use argument: royalty terms that ignore AI
The fourth US fair use factor asks about “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. Suno’s defence depends partly on showing that AI-generated music has not damaged the market for the labels’ recordings.
Suno says Apple Music’s contract terms are relevant here, pointing to “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.” The logic is simple. If labels are paid a guaranteed minimum regardless of how much AI music is on a service, and AI tracks are kept out of the pool the labels share, Suno will argue that AI music cannot easily be eating into the labels’ income on that service.
The misuse argument: catalogues as a “cudgel”
The newer and sharper part of the filing is copyright misuse. Suno’s position is that Universal and Sony “‘have engaged in anticompetitive activities that extend an unlawful monopoly over the production and commercialization of music.’” These are allegations made by one side in litigation, not findings.
“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.” — Suno, in its opposition to Apple’s motion, as quoted by Digital Music News
Suno says that makes “negotiations to restrict Apple’s ability to offer AI-generated content, or to steer toward lower-cost content” significant. It also ties streaming fraud to the same theory, saying the labels “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”. That is why a topic about fraud sits alongside topics about licensing.
Suno has tried a version of this before and lost. In April 2026, a magistrate judge in the main case in Massachusetts refused Suno’s request for discovery into the labels’ unexecuted AI licensing negotiations. The order found that “Additional discovery into Plaintiffs’ AI licensing strategy is unlikely to advance any significant issue in this case” and noted that “No court in the First Circuit has yet adopted the theory” of copyright misuse. Suno is now seeking similar ground through a streaming service rather than the labels themselves.
Why it matters
For artists and AI music creators
Most artists never see the deals between labels and streaming services, but those deals decide how royalty pools are split and what gets recommended. If contracts really do exclude AI-generated tracks from the royalty pool, that affects anyone releasing AI-assisted music, not just Suno. Whatever the court decides about discovery, the details may stay sealed under a protective order. For now, the practical advice holds: disclose how AI was used in your track and keep records of your own contribution.
For Australia
Australian rules are already drawing lines around AI. ARIA has excluded wholly AI-generated recordings from its charts since the chart dated 31 August 2026, while recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role remain eligible. Music publishers have also urged Canberra to wait for the US AI rulings before changing Australian copyright law, as we covered in AI copyright in Australia: publishers slam opt-out plan. How US courts treat fair use and misuse arguments will feed into that debate.
For the industry
Streaming services want to stay out of the AI music lawsuits, but their contracts and data keep getting pulled in. Deezer and Spotify have both described large-scale filtering of AI-generated tracks, as we reported in Deezer lets users block AI-generated music and Spotify’s AI update. Suno’s filing reframes that kind of policy as something the labels may be pushing for, which is a claim the labels are certain to contest.
What happens next
Apple’s reply is due on 3 November (US time) under the docket, and the motion is set to be heard on 1 December. Separately, Suno and the Mechanical Licensing Collective have proposed a schedule in their own subpoena dispute with deadlines into mid-November, and DistroKid has until 4 November to oppose Universal’s motion to compel in another subpoena fight, Digital Music News reports. A fair use ruling in the main case is still a long way off.
Following AI music on Dizy
Dizy is built on disclosure: artists declare whether a track is AI-assisted or AI-generated when they submit, and listeners decide what rises. Check the Top 100, browse New releases and AI artists such as Xania Monet, or submit your track. For more on the Suno case, read Suno Lawsuit: Court Lets Labels Depose Ex-Menlo Exec Over Post and Reservoir sues Suno and Anthropic.
Sources
Digital Music News: Suno fires back against Apple’s subpoena opposition (28 October 2026)
Digital Music News: Suno files subpoena demands against Apple (26 October 2026)
ARIA: ARIA Charts set eligibility rules for recordings made with AI
Cornell Law School LII: 17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
