AFM v. Universal & Warner: The Musicians' Union AI Lawsuit, Explained

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.

What is the Sound Recording Labor Agreement?

The Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA) is the union contract between the AFM and the major labels. It sets the pay and working terms for session musicians: the hired players on a record, separate from the featured artist.

The SRLA is the document the whole case rests on. The AFM is not claiming copyright infringement. It is claiming the labels broke this contract.

What is Article 21, the “new use” clause?

Article 21 is the part of the SRLA that covers “new use.” When a recording gets used in a way the original session never paid for, the labels owe the players a fresh payment.

The AFM says AI licensing is that new use. Session players were paid to make a record, not to have that record train an AI model or seed a licensing deal. That gap is the case in one sentence.

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.

Why isn’t Sony Music named in the lawsuit?

Sony Music has not settled with Suno or Udio. It is still fighting both in court. With no settlement, there is no AI money to share, so the AFM has nothing to claim from Sony yet.

If Sony settles later, the same Article 21 argument would apply to its deals. The union went after the two labels that already have money on the table.

Why does the union say Universal and Warner owe session players?

The union’s argument runs straight through Article 21. It says licensing those recordings to Suno and Udio for AI training and output is the kind of new use the clause was written for, 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 AFM filed on June 5, 2026. Warner made the first move on July 10, writing to Judge Edgardo Ramos to request a pre-motion conference ahead of a motion to dismiss, plus a stay on discovery.

Warner’s defence has two legs. It says Warner Music Group Corp. never signed the SRLA and holds no Suno or Udio licenses, so it is the wrong defendant. And it says the SRLA, executed in March 2023, predates both platforms and never contemplated AI licensing, which leaves Article 21 with nothing to point to.

Warner also told the court it is negotiating a fresh SRLA with the AFM right now, and accused the union of suing “in an improper attempt to place a judicial thumb on the negotiation scales.”

Universal has not filed a comparable response. No hearing dates are public. I’ll update this tracker as deadlines land.

How is the AFM case different from RIAA v. Suno and Udio?

The RIAA cases and the AFM case sit on opposite sides of the same money.

RIAA v. Suno and RIAA v. Udio are copyright cases. The labels sued the AI companies to make them pay for training on music they never licensed. Those cases turned into settlements and licensing deals.

The AFM case is a contract case, and it does not target the AI companies at all. It targets the labels, and it asks who inside the industry gets a cut once the AI money arrives. The first wave decided AI companies must pay. This case decides whether session musicians ever see it.

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

This case only exists because the RIAA settlements turned lawsuits into licensing money. In Germany, a separate GEMA case against Suno is fighting a parallel battle over songwriters’ compositions rather than recordings. Together they map the same shift: from whether AI pays for music, to how that payment gets split once it lands.