AFM v. Universal & Warner: The Musicians' Union AI Lawsuit, Explained
No AI money has reached session musicians yet, and no court has ruled on whether it must. The AFM filed its complaint on June 5, 2026, arguing the labels' Suno and Udio proceeds are a 'new use' under the union contract. A win would give session players a contractual share of every AI deal the majors sign; a loss leaves the money with the labels.
Timeline of key events
- New
AFM sues Universal and Warner in New York
The union files a 16-page breach-of-contract complaint in New York federal court, alleging the labels kept Suno and Udio settlement and licensing money owed to session musicians under Article 21 of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement.
Read the full story -
Warner signs a licensing deal with Suno
Warner settles with Suno and licenses its catalogue in a first-of-its-kind partnership, the third major-label AI deal the union says triggered Article 21 payments.
Read the full story -
Warner settles with Udio
Warner Music drops its claims against Udio and signs a licensing deal for a next-generation, artist-approved platform, adding a second pool of settlement money.
Read the full story -
Universal settles with Udio
Universal becomes the first major to settle its copyright case against Udio, agreeing to build a licensed AI platform. The settlement creates the first pool of AI money the AFM now says was never shared with session players.
Read the full story
What is the AFM v. Universal and Warner lawsuit?
On June 5, 2026, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) sued Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group in New York federal court. The 16-page breach-of-contract complaint alleges the labels kept the money from their Suno and Udio settlements and licensing deals without paying the session musicians whose recordings were copied to train the AI models.
The legal hook is Article 21 of the union’s Sound Recording Labor Agreement with the majors, the “new use” clause. The AFM argues AI licensing is exactly the kind of new use the clause was written for, which makes this the first union-level test of the question.
Who is involved?
The AFM represents professional musicians in the United States and Canada, including the session players hired for major-label recordings. It negotiated the Sound Recording Labor Agreement, the collective bargaining contract at the center of the case.
Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group are the defendants. Universal settled its copyright case against Udio in October 2025. Warner settled with Udio in November 2025 and licensed Suno days later.
Sony Music is not named. It has not settled with either AI company, so there are no proceeds to fight over yet.
Why does the union say Universal and Warner owe session players?
Article 21 entitles AFM members to a share of revenue from any “new use” of recordings they played on. The union says licensing those recordings to Suno and Udio for AI training and output is a new use, so the payment obligation kicked in the moment settlement money arrived.
The complaint says the labels “failed to share in the settlement proceeds, despite their self-congratulatory claims of protecting those same artists.” It goes further on transparency: the labels “have not provided the AFM with the names of artists who appeared or worked on recordings that have been licensed to or otherwise obtained by Suno and Udio.”
Where does the case stand now?
The case is days old. The AFM filed on June 5, 2026, and neither label has responded in court. No hearing dates are public.
The union is seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, and a declaration the labels breached the contract. Expect the labels’ first move to be an answer or a motion to dismiss. I’ll update this tracker as deadlines land.
What a “new use” ruling would change
A win for the AFM would attach a per-track payment obligation to AI licensing money, the question the Suno and Udio settlements left silent. Every future deal the majors sign, from Klay Vision to Spotify’s AI remix product, would carry the same downstream duty: identify the players on the licensed recordings and pay them.
A loss would confirm AI licensing revenue stays with the rights holder. Session musicians would have to win new protections at the bargaining table instead of in court.
What this means for you
- If you played on major-label sessions covered by the AFM agreement, this case decides whether AI money contractually reaches you. Watch it even if you never touch AI tools.
- The settlements created the pool of money; this case decides who shares it. The per-track question was left open in every label-AI deal so far.
- Transparency is part of the claim. The union wants the labels to name which artists’ recordings went to Suno and Udio, a list the labels have not produced.
How this fits the bigger picture
AFM v. Universal and Warner sits downstream of the label-versus-AI cases: it only exists because the RIAA v. Udio and RIAA v. Suno settlements turned lawsuits into licensing money. A separate GEMA case in Germany targets compositions rather than recordings. The first wave of cases asked whether AI companies must pay for music. This one asks who inside the industry gets paid when they do.
Frequently asked questions
- Is AFM v. Universal and Warner a copyright lawsuit?
- No. The AFM case is a breach-of-contract claim under the Sound Recording Labor Agreement, the union's collective bargaining contract with the major labels. The union argues Universal and Warner owe session musicians a share of their Suno and Udio money under Article 21, the contract's 'new use' clause.
- What does the AFM want from Universal and Warner?
- Damages, attorneys' fees, and a court declaration the labels breached the Sound Recording Labor Agreement. The union also wants the names of artists whose recordings were licensed to or obtained by Suno and Udio, information it says the labels have withheld.
- Who gets paid if the AFM wins its case against Universal and Warner?
- Session musicians who performed on major-label recordings covered by the AFM's Sound Recording Labor Agreement: the hired players on a record, separate from the featured artist. A win would entitle them to a share of AI settlement and licensing revenue tied to recordings they played on.
- Does the AFM lawsuit reopen the Suno and Udio settlements?
- No. Those settlements stand. The AFM case is about how the money gets split after it reaches Universal and Warner. A ruling for the union would attach a payment obligation to future AI licensing deals too.
- When will there be a ruling in AFM v. Universal and Warner?
- No schedule exists yet. The complaint was filed on June 5, 2026 in New York federal court, and Universal and Warner have not yet responded. The first signal will be the labels' answer or a motion to dismiss.