Warner says its union contract never covered AI, and asks a judge to throw out the AFM's lawsuit
Warner Music Group has asked a New York federal court to dismiss the American Federation of Musicians’ lawsuit over its AI licensing deals with Suno and Udio. The defence is blunt: the union contract at the centre of the case was signed in March 2023, and it never mentioned AI.
The argument came in a letter to Judge Edgardo Ramos filed on Friday, July 10, requesting a pre-motion conference ahead of a formal motion to dismiss.
What Warner told Judge Edgardo Ramos
Warner’s first move is to deny it belongs in the case at all.
“Warner Music Group Corp. is not a signatory to the SRLA, does not itself own copyrights, was not a plaintiff in the copyright infringement lawsuits against Suno and Udio, and thus does not have licenses with Suno or Udio,” the letter states, according to Digital Music News. Warner says this alone is enough to dismiss the complaint against it.
The second argument goes at the contract itself. The Sound Recording Labor Agreement was executed in March 2023, and Warner says the AI question simply wasn’t on the table.
“Music-focused platforms like Suno and Udio did not exist” when the agreement was signed, Warner wrote, “and consequently, neither the SRLA nor any AFM agreement contemplates compensation related to the licensing or other use of content for training AI models.”
Why Warner says Article 21 has nothing to point to
The AFM’s case rests on Article 21 of the SRLA, titled “Use of a Phonograph Record … in Other Mediums”. It governs how performers get paid when a recording is used for something beyond its original purpose. The union calls AI licensing exactly that kind of new use.
Warner’s reading is narrower. It argues Article 21 “merely points to other agreements” and “does not itself confer legal rights”.
“Where no agreement exists covering the new medium, as AFM concedes is the case here, Article 21 has nothing to point to, and there is no entitlement to payment,” the letter continues.
Warner leans on a line in the AFM’s own complaint to get there. The union wrote that use of sound recordings in generative AI models “is not a purpose covered by the SRLA”. Warner reads it as a concession and turns it into the centrepiece of the defence.
Warner wants discovery frozen while it negotiates with the same union
The last part of the filing is the one worth sitting with. Warner asked for a stay on discovery, arguing it would drag in “sensitive AI licensing negotiations and terms”.
The reason those terms are sensitive is Warner is in active talks with the AFM right now on a fresh Sound Recording Labor Agreement.
AFM filed this lawsuit in an improper attempt to place a judicial thumb on the negotiation scales.
So Warner’s position is the old contract doesn’t cover AI, and the union should stop litigating and let the new contract get negotiated. The union’s position is the money already moved, and session players saw none of it.
Where AFM v. Universal and Warner goes next
The suit covers the settlements and licensing deals the majors struck after suing Suno and Udio for copyright infringement. The AFM wants a share of that revenue for the musicians who played on the recordings used to train the models.
Judge Ramos has to rule on the pre-motion conference before any dismissal motion is briefed. Universal has not filed a comparable response.
The narrow question is contractual. The broader one is whether a contract signed before generative AI existed can reach the money generative AI now produces, and Warner is betting it can’t.
Full status, parties, and the running timeline live in the AFM v. Universal and Warner case tracker.
Frequently asked questions
What is Warner's argument for dismissing the AFM lawsuit?
Warner makes two main arguments. It says Warner Music Group Corp. never signed the Sound Recording Labor Agreement and holds no Suno or Udio licenses, so it is the wrong defendant. It also says the agreement, signed in March 2023, never contemplated AI licensing at all.
Why does Warner say Article 21 doesn't apply to its Suno and Udio deals?
Article 21 is the clause covering use of a recording in a medium beyond its original purpose. Warner argues the clause only points to other agreements rather than granting a payment right by itself. Because no AFM agreement covers AI licensing, Warner says Article 21 has nothing to point to.
Is Warner Music Group Corp. a signatory to the AFM's Sound Recording Labor Agreement?
Warner says it is not. In its letter to the court, Warner states the parent company does not own copyrights, was not a plaintiff in the copyright suits against Suno and Udio, and holds no licenses with either company.
Why is Warner asking for a discovery stay in the AFM case?
Warner told the court discovery would expose sensitive AI licensing negotiations and terms. It also confirmed it is in active talks with the AFM on a new Sound Recording Labor Agreement, and wants the case paused until the dismissal motion is resolved.
About the author
Covering AI music tools, industry shifts, and news for music creators and professionals. Twice-weekly newsletter at aimusicpreneur.com.
