A single social media post has become evidence in the biggest AI music lawsuit in the US. On Monday 26 October (US time), a federal magistrate judge in Boston allowed Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and Sony Music to depose C.C. Gong, a former principal at Suno investor Menlo Ventures, about a post she published and later deleted in February 2026.
The labels say the post goes to the heart of Suno’s fair use defence: whether music made with Suno replaces the recordings it was trained on. Suno did not oppose the request, but stated that it takes no position on whether the subpoena is proper. Ms Gong is not a party to the case and is not accused of any wrongdoing.
The post at the centre of it
According to Music Business Worldwide, the post congratulated Suno on reaching 2 million paid subscribers and US$300 million in annual recurring revenue, milestones announced by chief executive Mikey Shulman in late February. Part of it read:
“I’ve personally shifted most of my listening to Suno. I was so tired of Spotify giving me the same overplayed recommendations. When everyone can create, the catalog becomes infinite and music becomes more personalized.” — C.C. Gong, in a since-deleted February 2026 post, as quoted by Digital Music News
The exhibit filed with the labels’ motion is a capture of a post on X by Ed Newton-Rex, chief executive of Fairly Trained, which reproduced an image of the original. On 26 February he had written: “This tweet, from Suno’s lead investor, will surely be used in court one day.” In March, Music Business Worldwide made a similar point in an open letter to Shulman: “Your own investor just told the world it is a replacement.”
What the labels told the court
In an unopposed motion filed on Friday 23 October in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the labels asked for leave to serve one deposition subpoena on Ms Gong after the 30 September deadline for most fact discovery, and to depose her within 30 days. They argued her statement “bears directly on the effect of Suno on the market for Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings, and thus on the fourth fair use factor”.
The filing sets out how they got there. On 20 August the labels subpoenaed Menlo Ventures for testimony on several topics, including “[t]he social-media post by C.C. Gong RELATING TO her shift in music listening from Spotify to SUNO”. On 24 September, according to the motion, Menlo’s lawyers said the firm could not obtain the information sought on that topic. The labels replied that she was a current employee and that Menlo only needed to ask her.
On 12 October, the motion says, Menlo’s counsel told the labels for the first time that Ms Gong had left the firm at the end of September. The labels served notice of a deposition subpoena on her the same day. “Plaintiffs have at all times acted diligently,” their lawyers wrote. The filing presents the labels’ account of those conversations.
Suno’s position
Suno agreed not to oppose the motion on condition that the labels included its statement. In exchange, the labels offered not to oppose a request by Suno to take one extra deposition of its own. Suno’s statement reads in part:
“Suno therefore defers to the Court as to whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue their subpoena to Ms. Gong, which followed Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Menlo Ventures by 53 days, and was served 12 days after the deadline for the close of fact discovery not implicated by Plaintiffs’ § 1201 claim. Suno takes no position on the subpoena’s propriety and does not intend to limit any objection Ms. Gong or Menlo Ventures may raise, including by motion to quash.” — Suno, in the labels’ motion
Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson granted the motion on 26 October, Music Business Worldwide reports. That means a deposition can go ahead, unless Ms Gong or Menlo Ventures objects successfully. Neither had commented publicly on the order in the reports we reviewed.
Part of a wider hunt for market evidence
Investors are now a regular target in this case. Menlo Ventures led Suno’s US$250 million Series C in November 2025, which valued the company at US$2.45 billion. The labels have also sought documents and testimony from Lightspeed Venture Partners, which led Suno’s Series B and has moved to quash its subpoena, and from Bond Capital, as we covered in Suno Lawsuit: Labels Want Investor Lightspeed to Testify.
Both sides are fighting over the same question from different directions. The labels have asked a New York court to make DistroKid hand over monthly counts of recordings its AI-detection tool scored as likely AI-generated, together with their streams and royalties. Suno and Udio, for their part, have moved to compel streaming play-volume data from the Mechanical Licensing Collective, which Digital Music News says is aimed at countering the labels’ claims of royalty dilution and market replacement.
The main case was filed in June 2024. Warner Music Group was an original plaintiff but settled with Suno in November 2025 as part of a licensing partnership. In August 2026 the labels added a claim under section 1201 of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, alleging that Suno circumvented YouTube’s anti-download protections to obtain recordings. Suno argues that training its models is fair use. None of the claims has been decided.
Why it matters
For artists and AI music creators
Fair use in the US turns on four factors, and the fourth, market harm, is often the most important. If the labels can show that listeners swap human-made recordings for AI output, Suno’s defence gets harder. If Suno can show that AI music grows the pie, as it argues, the opposite applies. One deleted post will not decide that, but it shows how much weight courts are putting on real listening behaviour. Whatever tools you use, keep a record of what you wrote, played or sang yourself, and be upfront about the AI involved.
For Australia
Music publishers have urged Canberra to wait for the outcome of US AI copyright lawsuits before changing Australian law, as we reported in AI copyright in Australia: publishers slam opt-out plan. The Suno case is one of those lawsuits, and market-harm evidence like this is what a US fair use ruling will be built on.
For the industry
The lesson for founders, investors and executives is simple: public enthusiasm can become evidence. When a company’s defence rests on not replacing existing music, posts from its own backers saying the opposite will be read closely in court.
What happens next
Under the order, the labels have 30 days to depose Ms Gong, subject to any motion to quash. Watch for a ruling on Lightspeed’s motion to quash, the DistroKid and Mechanical Licensing Collective data fights, and how much of this evidence ends up in the parties’ fair use arguments.
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. See the Overall Top 40, browse New releases and AI artists, or submit your track. For more on the legal fights over AI music, read Reservoir sues Suno and Anthropic and Elvis Presley song owners sue Anthropic.
Sources
Digital Music News: Major labels to depose Menlo vet C.C. Gong over Suno tweet (26 October 2026)
Music Business Worldwide: An open letter to Suno’s Mikey Shulman (March 2026)
Cornell Law School LII: 17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
