Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 4
  • Relationships: 5
  • Research debt items: 4

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)

Summary

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y.), is the original major-label copyright action against the generative music service Udio. Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged unauthorized copying of sound recordings for training. UMG/Capitol and Warner later stipulated to dismissal of their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and, on July 20, 2026, filed a second action, No. 1:26-cv-6120, asserting 30,117 additional recordings. No fair-use merits ruling is recorded in the sources reviewed here.

Verified Facts

  • On June 24, 2024, UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music, Arista Records LLC, and Warner-affiliated companies sued Uncharted Labs, Inc., d/b/a Udio.com, in the Southern District of New York. A corrected complaint was entered June 25, 2024. The case was assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.12
  • The complaint alleges that Udio copied and ingested popular sound recordings to train a service that generates digital music files in seconds, without authorization, and that outputs will compete with the recordings used in training.1
  • Plaintiffs plead two counts paralleling the Suno action: direct infringement of post-1972 sound recordings and direct infringement of pre-1972 recordings indexed under 17 U.S.C. § 1401. They seek a willfulness declaration, an injunction, and statutory damages.1
  • On November 5, 2025, the court so-ordered a stipulation dismissing all claims by UMG Recordings, Inc. and Capitol Records, LLC against Udio without prejudice, stating that other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected.2
  • On November 25, 2025, the court so-ordered a stipulation dismissing all claims by Atlantic Recording Corporation, Rhino Entertainment Company, Warner Music Inc., Warner Music International Services Limited, Warner Records Inc., Warner Records LLC, and Warner Records/SIRE Ventures LLC without prejudice, again leaving other plaintiffs’ claims unaffected.2
  • On July 20, 2026, Sony Music Entertainment and affiliated Sony labels filed Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.), describing it as a second action after the original complaint identified only an illustrative fraction of copied recordings.3
  • The 2026 complaint asserts 30,117 sound recordings, alleges that forensic analysis of Udio’s training data identified hundreds of thousands of Sony works, and alleges that Udio obtained many recordings by stream-ripping from YouTube in circumvention of technological protection measures. It also pleads Copyright Act, § 1401, and DMCA § 1201 claims.3
  • The 2026 complaint states that plaintiffs sought leave to add those works in the original action and that on June 29, 2026 the court denied leave while saying plaintiffs could seek relief for all copyrighted works in another lawsuit.3

Historical Context

The Udio complaint was filed the same day as UMG v. Suno and uses the same master-recording theory.1 Partial dismissals later split the majors: UMG and Warner exited the original Udio docket without prejudice, while Sony continued and opened a second case on an expanded work list.23 Those dismissals are not a fair-use ruling.

Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: complaint, docket stipulations, and a 2026 follow-on complaint. No judicial determination of fair use is recorded here.123

Two features distinguish Udio from the book-training summary judgments. First, the works are sound recordings, including pre-1972 recordings asserted under § 1401, not literary works.1 Second, the 2026 pleading adds a DMCA circumvention theory (YouTube stream-ripping) to the training-copy claim.3 The November 2025 stipulations are without prejudice, so they do not finally adjudicate the dismissed labels’ rights.2

This page does not treat Audible Magic match counts or stream-ripping allegations as proven. The 30,117-work figure is the number Sony chose to plead, not a judicial finding of the training set’s size.3

Relationships

  • CASE-UMG-V-UDIO cites SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.
  • CASE-UMG-V-UDIO related_to CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.
  • CASE-UMG-V-UDIO related_to TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.
  • CASE-UMG-V-UDIO related_to TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.
  • CASE-UMG-V-UDIO related_to STAT-USC-107.

Sources

  1. SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: Original complaint (June 2024).
  2. SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET: CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-04777.
  3. SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony follow-on complaint (July 20, 2026).
  4. SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Research Debt

  • Add Udio’s answer in No. 1:24-cv-04777 as a primary source for any training-data admissions.
  • Add the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend order from the original docket rather than Sony’s quotation of it.
  • Add any later scheduling, summary-judgment, or settlement filings in either Udio action.
  • Do not import press-reported royalty rates or equity terms without a party filing.

Document metadata

  • Last verified: 2026-08-22

  1. SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT — Original complaint (June 24/25, 2024). Plaintiff allegations except as to caption and claims pleaded. ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET — CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-04777. Primary for filing dates and dismissal stipulations. ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  3. SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT — Second Sony complaint (July 20, 2026). Plaintiff allegations; the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend ruling is quoted from that complaint. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩