Skip to content

Analytics cookies

We use Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager to count visits and see which pages are useful. If you accept, Google Analytics may set cookies to recognise your return visits. If you decline, it sets no cookies, but Google still receives a cookieless signal for each page you view. We don’t send Google your name, email address or registration details, and you can change your choice at any time under “Cookie settings” at the bottom of the page. Privacy

Suno asks court to compel Apple deposition over label licensing talks and streaming fraud in labels' training suit

Oct 27, 2026 · Gathered automatically from public sources. Not reviewed by a person.

What happened

On 27 October 2026, Suno opposed non-party Apple's motion to quash Suno's deposition subpoena, in proceedings arising from the record labels' lawsuit over Suno's training on their recordings. The subpoena dispute is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:26-mc-80303 (Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi); the underlying case is UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11611 in the District of Massachusetts.

What Suno is seeking

Suno says it has narrowed the dispute to four topics: Apple's current licensing negotiations with Universal Music Group and Sony; whether Apple has assessed running Apple Music without either label's catalog; streaming fraud on Apple Music; and Apple's communications with the labels or the Recording Industry Association of America about Suno.

Suno argues the labels' harm theory rests on Suno-made tracks diluting the labels' share on streaming services, while the labels disclaim any claim that Suno's outputs themselves infringe. Suno further argues the labels use their catalogs to win anti-AI terms from services, and that only Apple can speak to these points. Suno says the case's protective order answers Apple's confidentiality concerns.

Suno describes its model as built by showing a program millions of examples of music and recordings, and says that copying was internal and fair use. That is Suno's characterization in its filing, not a court finding.

What is still open

Parts of Suno's brief are redacted, and a motion to consider sealing Apple's material (Dkt. 11) is pending. A hearing is set for 1 December 2026. No ruling on the deposition is reported in the source, and Apple's position beyond its motion to quash is not stated there.

Sources