Apple files reply opposing Suno deposition subpoena; judge transfers motion to Massachusetts

What happened

Apple filed a reply on 3 November 2026 doubling down on its opposition to Suno's deposition subpoena in the record labels' copyright case against the AI music company, and on 4 November 2026 the presiding magistrate judge transferred Apple's motion to quash to the District of Massachusetts, where the main UMG v. Suno lawsuits are pending. Apple did not oppose the transfer.

What Suno is seeking

Suno is seeking testimony from Apple Music about its licensing talks with Universal Music Group and Sony Music, including any "anti-AI deal terms" or anti-dilution arrangement for the royalty pool; the "long-term commercial viability of Apple Music" without the majors' catalogues; and communications between Apple, the plaintiff labels and the RIAA about the copyright case. Suno argues the material is central to its fair use and copyright misuse defences. Apple moved to quash the subpoena on 13 October 2026, and Suno opposed that motion on 27 October 2026.

Apple's reply

Apple argues the deposition topics are overbroad and irrelevant: testimony about whether an anti-dilution arrangement is being discussed "would add nothing but speculation about a deal that does not exist," and it says the labels' licensing negotiations have no bearing on its own AI-related initiatives. On copyright misuse, Apple argues the doctrine turns on the plaintiffs' conduct, not Apple's internal view of the value of their catalogues. Apple says it has already responded to six subpoenas encompassing more than 90 emails and more than 10 verbal conferrals from both sides over the past year, and that a limit on third-party discovery is now in order. It warns that disclosure would force it to reveal its bargaining positions to the counterparty across the table in ongoing negotiations, and that a protective order cannot ensure the information stays protected at trial, where Apple as a non-party will have little insight into or control over its use.

What this does and does not change

The transfer moves the decision on the motion to quash to the Massachusetts court hearing the underlying infringement suits. No ruling on the subpoena itself has been made, and the hearing schedule now rests with that court.