Sony Music Entertainment filed a new lawsuit against Udio in a New York federal court, accusing the AI music generation company of using more than 30,000 copyrighted songs without permission. The songs range from Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog" to Beyoncé's "Say My Name" and Harry Styles' "As It Was" (The Verge).

The legal fight began in June 2024, when Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records jointly sued Udio (corporately, Uncharted Labs, Inc.) and a similar company called Suno in separate federal courts — Udio in New York, Suno in Boston (RIAA). The Udio case is docketed as UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., case number 1:24-cv-04777 (CourtListener).

Udio is an AI company that creates music using computer models. These models learn by analyzing huge collections of existing songs, a process called "training." Sony identified the additional songs using a technology called audio fingerprinting, which works something like the app Shazam — it analyzes the sound of a recording to create a unique digital signature that can identify it. Sony got access to Udio's training data through a legal process called discovery, where both sides in a lawsuit must share relevant evidence with each other.

On or about May 25, 2026, Sony filed a request to add exactly 30,442 sound recordings to the original lawsuit (Digital Music News; Music Business Worldwide). A judge rejected that request, leaving the original case at 333 songs. Sony's new complaint appears to pursue the full catalog through a separate filing rather than the rejected expansion.

Udio has acknowledged that its AI models were built by training on a large collection of sound recordings, including audio sourced from YouTube (The Verge). Sony is asking the court to block Udio from using its works and is seeking damages of up to $150,000 per song.

The lawsuit picture around Udio has changed a lot over the past year. Universal Music Group settled its case with Udio on October 30, 2025, and the two companies announced plans to collaborate on a new music creation and streaming platform (AP News). Warner Music Group followed on November 19, 2025, settling its own claims and similarly planning a joint platform with Udio (Reuters).

Sony now stands as the only major label still suing Udio. The contrast in approach is clear: Universal and Warner chose licensing and partnership, while Sony has doubled down, filing a fresh complaint after its attempt to expand the original case was rejected.

The fingerprinting evidence is worth noting. In AI copyright cases, the training data has long been the hardest part for plaintiffs — it is hidden from outsiders, defendants do not want to share it, and without access, plaintiffs can only argue that an AI-generated song sounds like a copyrighted one. Sony's ability to run fingerprinting across Udio's actual training data changes that. Instead of arguing that an AI output sounds like a Beyoncé track, Sony can point to the original recording sitting in the training set itself. That is a much stronger type of claim.

The judge's refusal to let Sony add 30,442 recordings to the existing case also matters. The original 2024 complaint named 333 works. Expanding by that much mid-litigation would have reshaped the entire proceeding — potentially overwhelming Udio's defense and making the evidence-sharing process unmanageable. By keeping the case at 333 works, the court signaled a preference for a manageable scope. Sony's response, filing a new lawsuit, is a bet that a separate complaint can reach the full catalog without hitting the same procedural wall.

The damages math alone gives the new filing weight. At up to $150,000 per work across 30,000-plus recordings, the theoretical exposure exceeds $4.5 billion — though actual damages depend on whether the court finds the infringement was intentional, whether each song was properly registered, and how the judge chooses to apply the law.

The broader context here is a split among the three major labels on how to deal with AI-generated music. Two have chosen the licensing path. Sony has chosen the courtroom. Whether that produces a legal precedent on training-data copyright — or simply a settlement on terms Sony finds more acceptable than what Universal and Warner negotiated — will shape how AI music companies approach training data for years to come. The outcome also bears on the parallel case against Suno in Boston, which proceeds on similar legal theories but without the fingerprinting evidence that Sony's discovery produced against Udio.