# UMG v. Uncharted Labs (Udio) > Source: https://aiwiki.ai/wiki/riaa_v_udio > Updated: 2026-05-19 > Categories: AI Incidents & Controversies, AI Policy & Regulation, Music & Audio Generation > From AI Wiki (https://aiwiki.ai), a free encyclopedia of artificial intelligence. Quote with attribution. # UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. **UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.** (case number 1:24-cv-04777) is a federal copyright infringement lawsuit filed on June 24, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Uncharted Labs, Inc., the company that operates the [Udio](/wiki/udio) generative AI music platform. The action was brought by a group of major record companies coordinated by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and was assigned to United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.[^1][^2] The complaint alleged that Uncharted Labs trained Udio's AI music generation model by copying massive quantities of copyrighted sound recordings without permission, and that the resulting service produced outputs that imitated specific, recognizable hit songs, including Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas Is You," Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean," ABBA's "Dancing Queen," and the Beach Boys' "I Get Around." The plaintiffs sought a declaration of infringement, injunctive relief, and statutory damages under the Copyright Act of up to $150,000 per infringed work.[^3][^4] On October 29, 2025, Universal Music Group (UMG) and Udio announced a settlement that resolved UMG's claims and established a new licensing relationship under which Udio committed to launching a redesigned, "licensed and authorized" AI music platform in 2026.[^5][^6] Warner Music Group reached a similar settlement on November 19, 2025, leaving Sony Music Entertainment as the sole remaining major-label plaintiff in active litigation against Uncharted Labs as of May 2026.[^7][^8] The Udio action is widely regarded as a landmark case for the music industry's response to generative AI and is generally discussed in tandem with the parallel suit filed the same day against Suno, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts. Together the two cases are commonly known as "RIAA v. Suno" and "RIAA v. Udio."[^1][^9] ## Background ### Founding of Uncharted Labs and Udio Uncharted Labs, Inc. is a New York-based artificial intelligence company founded in December 2023. The founding team consisted of five former Google [DeepMind](/wiki/google_deepmind) researchers: David Ding, Conor Durkan, Charlie Nash, Yaroslav Ganin, and Andrew Sanchez. The founders had previously contributed to work on generative models inside DeepMind, with several members involved in audio and image generation research.[^10][^11] The team released the consumer product, branded as Udio, in a free public beta on April 10, 2024. Udio allowed users to generate fully produced audio tracks by entering text descriptions of a song's genre, mood, lyrics, or stylistic inspirations. The initial release attracted attention because outputs sounded markedly more polished than then-comparable systems, with cleaner vocals, mastered mixes, and clearer stylistic mimicry.[^10][^11] At launch, Udio disclosed an approximately $10 million seed financing round led by [Andreessen Horowitz](/wiki/andreessen_horowitz). The round included participation from individual investors associated with the music industry, including will.i.am and Common, as well as technology figures such as Mike Krieger, the co-founder of Instagram.[^10][^11] ### The state of AI music generation in 2024 By mid-2024, several systems demonstrated the ability to produce vocal music from short text prompts. [Suno](/wiki/suno), launched in 2022 and operated by Suno, Inc., reached broad public adoption following its v3 release; Udio entered the market in April 2024 and competed directly with Suno on consumer features and audio quality. Industry observers placed both systems within the broader category of [generative AI](/wiki/generative_ai) and [AI music generation](/wiki/ai_music_generation), which also included research models such as Google DeepMind's [Lyria](/wiki/lyria) and Meta AI's [MusicGen](/wiki/musicgen).[^12] Unlike many earlier research models, neither Udio nor Suno publicly disclosed the composition of its [training data](/wiki/training_data). Each company described its training corpus only in general terms (for example, as "a vast amount of different kinds of sound recordings" or "a large dataset of music"), an approach that became central to the dispute that followed.[^12][^13] ### The RIAA position before filing The RIAA, the U.S. trade association that represents the three major recorded-music companies (UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group), had publicly criticized unlicensed AI training on commercial sound recordings throughout 2023 and 2024. In January 2024, the RIAA included generative AI on its list of "notorious markets" submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative. Public statements from RIAA officials in the months before the suits framed generative AI services that trained on commercial catalogs without permission as "industrial scale" copyright infringement.[^14][^15] ## The complaint of June 24, 2024 ### Plaintiffs and defendant The complaint in the Southern District of New York was filed jointly by the following recorded-music plaintiffs: - UMG Recordings, Inc. - Capitol Records, LLC - [Sony](/wiki/sony) Music Entertainment - Arista Records LLC - Atlantic Records Group LLC - Rhino Entertainment Company - Warner Records Inc. - Warner Music International Services Limited[^3][^4] The sole named defendant was Uncharted Labs, Inc., doing business as Udio.com. The case was captioned **UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.** and assigned case number 1:24-cv-04777 on the Southern District of New York docket. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein was assigned to preside over the matter.[^2][^3] ### Causes of action The complaint pleaded direct copyright infringement of the plaintiffs' sound recordings under the Copyright Act of 1976. The core theory of the case was that Uncharted Labs had copied the plaintiffs' phonorecords during the construction of its training dataset and again during model training, and that those reproductions were themselves infringements regardless of the nature of any subsequent generated outputs.[^3][^4] The complaint also alleged that user-facing outputs from Udio's service infringed the plaintiffs' sound recordings by reproducing protected elements of specific named tracks. The plaintiffs sought: - A declaration that Uncharted Labs's conduct constituted willful infringement - An injunction prohibiting further unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' sound recordings in training or output generation - Statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work under 17 U.S.C. section 504 - Disgorgement of profits, costs, and attorneys' fees[^3][^4] ### Coordination with the Suno action On the same date, the RIAA also coordinated the filing of a parallel suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Suno, Inc., styled **UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Suno, Inc.** The two complaints relied on similar legal theories but were filed in different jurisdictions because of the locations of the defendants' principal places of business: Uncharted Labs in New York, and Suno in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[^1][^15] The two cases have proceeded independently on separate dockets and before different judges. ## Specific examples and allegations A distinctive feature of the Udio complaint was its detailed presentation of paired audio examples: a recognizable commercial recording, alongside a Udio-generated output that the plaintiffs asserted reproduced protected expression from that recording. The complaint described prompts, output titles, and musicological similarities (such as melodic contour, rhythm, vocal style, and harmonic structure) for each example. Multiple secondary sources have summarized the most prominent examples, although a small number of details (such as exact prompt text) appear primarily in the complaint and its exhibits rather than in widely accessible press coverage.[^3][^4][^16] ### Mariah Carey, "All I Want for Christmas Is You" According to reporting that summarized the complaint, plaintiffs prompted Udio with a description that included references to Mariah Carey's voice, contemporary R&B, the holiday genre, and biographical descriptors of the artist. The complaint alleged that the resulting generated output contained chords, vocal stylings, and a melody that were closely modeled on Carey's original 1994 recording. The complaint identified additional Udio outputs that contained recognizable elements of the same recording.[^4][^16] ### Michael Jackson, "Billie Jean" The complaint alleged that prompts referencing the style and subject matter of Michael Jackson's 1982 hit produced multiple Udio outputs that incorporated melodic and rhythmic patterns from the original. One example output identified in coverage of the complaint was titled "Midnight Denial." Plaintiffs argued that the rhythm and pitch contour of the generated melody on the disputed phrase closely tracked the original recording, and that further outputs reproduced elements of the chorus and Jackson's vocal style.[^4][^16] ### ABBA, "Dancing Queen" and the Beach Boys, "I Get Around" The complaint cited Udio outputs that allegedly reproduced features of ABBA's 1976 single "Dancing Queen" and the Beach Boys' 1964 single "I Get Around." Both examples were used to demonstrate the plaintiffs' contention that Udio could reproduce era-specific production characteristics that were unique to particular hit recordings, not merely to a broader genre.[^4][^16] ### Other examples Press coverage of the complaint and the parallel Suno complaint noted additional Udio outputs alleged to imitate works such as The Temptations' "My Girl" and Green Day's "American Idiot." The plaintiffs framed these examples as illustrative rather than exhaustive, and indicated that the complete set of allegedly infringing outputs would be developed through discovery.[^16] The plaintiffs argued that the alleged closeness of these outputs to specific commercial recordings was evidence that Udio's training set must have contained the plaintiffs' copyrighted phonorecords, and that the only plausible source for such fine-grained imitation was unauthorized copying of the underlying recordings.[^3][^4] ## Udio's response and defenses ### Initial public statements Udio did not publish a detailed point-by-point response to the complaint at the time of filing. The company's principal public statement was a blog post titled "AI and the Future of Music," which framed Udio's training process as one of analyzing existing recordings to extract patterns about musical style. The post argued that musical "ideas" and "styles" are not themselves owned by anyone and that learning patterns from a body of recordings is, in Udio's view, analogous to how human musicians study and absorb existing music.[^17] ### The fair use defense In its answer to the complaint, filed in August 2024, Udio formally asserted that any reproduction of the plaintiffs' sound recordings during training was protected by the fair use doctrine codified at 17 U.S.C. section 107. The company argued that: - Its training process used existing recordings as data, in order to identify statistical patterns about audio characteristics, not in order to reproduce or distribute the underlying works; - The eventual generated outputs were intended to be new, non-infringing musical creations, not reproductions of training inputs; and - The plaintiffs' position would, if accepted, effectively allow them to "own" genres or styles of music, which Udio argued was foreclosed by decades of copyright precedent.[^13][^17] Udio's filing characterized its training pipeline as "a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product," and labeled this kind of use "quintessential fair use."[^13] ### Admissions about training data In the same answer, Udio formally admitted that it had built its models by ingesting "a vast amount of different kinds of sound recordings" obtained from publicly available sources. In subsequent filings, Udio further acknowledged that it had obtained training data from YouTube using the open-source tool YT-DLP, an admission that drew significant press attention because it confirmed long-standing speculation about how generative audio systems obtained their training material.[^13] ### Antitrust counter-narrative Udio's pleadings also advanced a competitive-injury framing, arguing that the major-label plaintiffs were attempting to use copyright litigation to suppress a new class of music-creation tools, and asserting that the plaintiffs collectively held positions of market power in commercial music that influenced their willingness to negotiate licenses. This framing did not develop into a separately briefed counterclaim before the UMG settlement, but it featured in the case's broader public narrative throughout 2025.[^13] ### The RIAA's response to Udio's defenses The RIAA responded publicly to Udio's fair use position in August 2024 with statements that characterized "industrial scale" copying of commercial recordings as outside the scope of fair use and rejected the notion that wholesale copying of phonorecords for training purposes could be analogized to ordinary musical learning. The RIAA framed Udio's outputs as products that competed directly with commercial recordings and argued that the fourth fair use factor (effect on the market for the original) decisively cut against Udio.[^14][^17] ## Settlement with Universal Music Group (October 29, 2025) ### Announcement On October 29, 2025, UMG and Udio jointly announced that they had reached a comprehensive settlement of UMG's claims in the lawsuit. The companies issued a joint press release describing the agreement as the first of "strategic agreements" between the two parties, and characterized the resolution as a transition from litigation to commercial partnership.[^5][^6] The press release framed the settlement in three parts: 1. A compensatory legal settlement of UMG's claims (with the financial terms undisclosed); 2. New license agreements covering UMG's recorded-music catalog and music-publishing assets, for use in connection with Udio's forthcoming AI music platform; and 3. A commitment to launch, in 2026, a redesigned consumer service that would be "powered by new cutting-edge generative AI technology that will be trained on authorized and licensed music."[^5] ### Statements by principals Udio co-founder and chief executive Andrew Sanchez stated: > "This moment brings to life everything we've been building toward, uniting AI and the music industry in a way that truly champions artists. Together, we're building the technological and business landscape that will fundamentally expand what's possible in music creation and engagement."[^5] UMG chairman and chief executive Sir Lucian Grainge stated that the settlement reflected UMG's commitment to "do what's right by our artists and songwriters, whether that means embracing new technologies, developing new business models, diversifying revenue streams or beyond."[^5][^6] ### Structure of the new licensed platform According to the joint announcement and reporting on the settlement, Udio's redesigned platform will: - Train future models only on music that has been authorized and licensed for AI training; - Compensate participating UMG artists and songwriters for both training use and output use of their works; - Operate as an opt-in service from the perspective of UMG's artists, so that individual artists' catalogs are included only with their consent; - Restrict the existing Udio product, during the transition to the new service, by keeping user-generated creations within a "walled garden" rather than allowing free download or external distribution; and - Introduce technical controls including audio fingerprinting and output filtering before the launch of the new service.[^5][^6][^18] The companies did not publicly disclose the financial terms of either the compensatory settlement payment or the per-use rates under the new licenses. Public reporting and music-industry commentary noted that the lack of disclosed economic terms drew criticism from artist representatives, who called for more transparency about how revenue from licensed AI training would flow to individual creators.[^18][^19] ### Procedural disposition Following the public announcement, the parties filed a notice of settlement on the Southern District of New York docket on October 31, 2025, followed by a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Judge Hellerstein entered an order of dismissal terminating UMG's claims on November 5, 2025.[^1][^2] ## Remaining defendants and ongoing claims ### Warner Music Group settlement (November 19, 2025) On November 19, 2025, Warner Music Group (WMG) announced that it had reached a settlement with Uncharted Labs that closely mirrored the structure of the UMG agreement. As with UMG, the terms of the WMG settlement included: - A compensatory settlement of WMG's claims (terms undisclosed); - Licensing of WMG's recorded-music and publishing catalog for use in Udio's forthcoming 2026 platform, on an opt-in basis at the level of individual WMG artists; - Commitments by Udio to implement fingerprinting, filtering, and other technical safeguards to credit participating artists and songwriters; and - Withdrawal of WMG's claims from the active litigation.[^7][^20] WMG chief executive Robert Kyncl framed the settlement as consistent with the company's stated position that it was "unwaveringly committed to the protection of the rights of our artists and songwriters."[^7] ### Sony Music Entertainment Following the UMG and WMG settlements, Sony Music Entertainment became the sole remaining major-label plaintiff with active claims against Uncharted Labs in the Southern District of New York action. Sony's claims continued to proceed under Judge Hellerstein's case management.[^7][^8] In December 2025, Sony Music and Uncharted Labs jointly requested an extension of approximately two months in the schedule for document discovery, citing the volume of materials at issue. Judge Hellerstein granted the request and extended the document-production deadline to January 30, 2026.[^8] Sony's continued litigation against Udio paralleled its continued litigation against Suno in the District of Massachusetts, and was widely interpreted in the music industry press as a strategic decision to pursue a fair-use ruling on the merits rather than settle on terms similar to those reached by UMG and WMG.[^8][^21] ### Independent-artist actions In addition to the major-label claims, Uncharted Labs became the subject of follow-on class actions on behalf of independent artists who alleged that their sound recordings had also been used in training Udio's models. These class actions, separate from the main RIAA-coordinated litigation, were in their early procedural stages as of mid-2026.[^21] ## Industry implications ### Licensing as a path out of litigation The Udio settlements with UMG and WMG were widely characterized in industry commentary as a turning point in the music industry's approach to generative AI. In contrast to early disputes between rightsholders and large-language-model developers, in which the issue of unlicensed training data was litigated primarily through fair-use defenses and settlements that addressed past harms (such as [Concord Music Group v. Anthropic](/wiki/concord_v_anthropic) in the lyrics context), the Udio settlements established a structure under which the AI developer agreed to operate on licensed and authorized music going forward.[^18][^22] The Udio settlement structure shared several common elements with other late-2025 music-industry AI agreements: - Forward-looking licensing rather than purely retrospective damages; - An opt-in posture for individual artists, layered on top of corporate-level catalog rights; - Technical commitments around fingerprinting, attribution, and filtering; and - Walled-garden or restricted-distribution policies for outputs.[^5][^7][^18] ### Pressure on competitors The settlements increased pressure on other AI music developers that had relied on similar training practices. As of May 2026, Suno, Inc. remained in active litigation against all three major labels and had not announced a comparable licensing arrangement with the majors as a group; Warner Music Group did, however, reach a separate settlement with Suno in November 2025 that observers compared to the Udio template.[^7][^9][^21] ### Reception by artists Reception of the licensed-AI partnerships among working artists was mixed. Some artist-rights groups welcomed the move from unlicensed training to opt-in licensing as a meaningful improvement, but others publicly criticized the lack of transparency regarding the financial terms of the settlements and the per-use compensation that individual artists would receive from training and output revenue. Public statements from artist advocacy organizations called for more detailed disclosure of payment structures and clearer attribution and consent mechanisms before catalog rollouts.[^18][^19] ### Distinctions from RIAA v. Suno While the Udio and Suno suits were filed on the same day and presented largely parallel legal theories, the two cases diverged significantly in their subsequent procedural and commercial paths: - The Udio matter was litigated in the Southern District of New York before Judge Hellerstein; the Suno matter was litigated in the District of Massachusetts before a different judge.[^1][^9] - Udio, in its formal answer, was more specific in publicly admitting the broad outlines of its training data sourcing, including its use of YT-DLP to obtain audio from publicly accessible online sources.[^13] - The Udio matter resolved through licensing settlements with two of the three major plaintiffs (UMG and WMG) within roughly seventeen months of filing, whereas the Suno matter remained in active litigation with all three majors as of early 2026, before WMG separately settled.[^1][^7][^21] - The Udio settlements established a path toward a new, forward-licensed product launching in 2026; the Suno settlement track at the time of writing did not include an equivalent joint product announcement with all three majors.[^5][^7][^21] These distinctions are commonly drawn in legal and industry commentary on the AI music cases.[^21][^22] ## Current status (May 2026) As of May 19, 2026, the procedural state of **UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.** is as follows: - UMG's claims were resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice and a court order entered in early November 2025, following the October 29, 2025 settlement;[^1][^2][^5] - WMG (along with the Warner-affiliated plaintiffs) resolved its claims through a settlement announced on November 19, 2025, on terms structurally similar to the UMG agreement;[^7][^20] - Sony Music Entertainment's claims remain in active discovery before Judge Hellerstein, with the document-production deadline extended to January 30, 2026 by court order in December 2025;[^8] - Udio is operating its existing consumer product on a transitional basis, with the previously announced restrictions on output distribution, while continuing to prepare its 2026 licensed-platform launch in partnership with UMG and WMG;[^5][^6][^7] and - Separate class actions filed in late 2025 and early 2026 on behalf of independent artists are in their early stages and have not been consolidated with the main action.[^21] The case has been widely cited in subsequent legal and policy debates over generative AI and copyright as one of the first AI-training disputes to be resolved through licensing rather than judicial ruling on the merits, and as a leading example of the "license plus settlement" template that emerged in the music industry during 2025 and 2026.[^18][^22] ## References [^1]: Recording Industry Association of America. "Record Companies Bring Landmark Cases for Responsible AI Against Suno and Udio in Boston and New York Federal Courts, Respectively." June 24, 2024. https://www.riaa.com/record-companies-bring-landmark-cases-for-responsible-ai-againstsuno-and-udio-in-boston-and-new-york-federal-courts-respectively/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^2]: CourtListener. "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., 1:24-cv-04777." Federal court docket entry. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68878697/umg-recordings-inc-v-uncharted-labs-inc-dba-udiocom/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^3]: Justia Dockets. "UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. et al, 1:2024cv04777, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York." https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv04777/623701 Accessed 2026-05-19. [^4]: Recording Industry Association of America. "Udio Complaint, filed June 24, 2024." https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Udio-Complaint-6.24.241.pdf Accessed 2026-05-19. [^5]: PR Newswire. "Universal Music Group and Udio Announce Udio's First Strategic Agreements for New Licensed AI Music Creation Platform." October 29, 2025. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/universal-music-group-and-udio-announce-udios-first-strategic-agreements-for-new-licensed-ai-music-creation-platform-302599129.html Accessed 2026-05-19. [^6]: PPC Land. "Udio settles copyright lawsuit, partners with Universal Music Group." https://ppc.land/udio-settles-copyright-lawsuit-partners-with-universal-music-group/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^7]: The Hollywood Reporter. "Warner Music Group Settles AI Infringement Lawsuit With Udio." November 19, 2025. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/music/music-industry-news/warner-music-group-settles-lawsuit-udio-1236431207/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^8]: Chat GPT Is Eating the World. "Sony Music, Uncharted Labs ask for document discovery extension until Jan. 30, 2026." December 4, 2025. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/12/04/sony-music-uncharted-labs-ask-for-document-discovery-extension-until-jan-30-2026/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^9]: McKool Smith. "AI Infringement Case Updates: November 17, 2025." https://www.mckoolsmith.com/newsroom-ailitigation-45 Accessed 2026-05-19. [^10]: PR Newswire. "Former Google DeepMind Researchers Assemble Luminaries Across Music And Tech To Launch Udio, A New AI-Powered App That Allows Anyone To Create Extraordinary Music In An Instant." April 10, 2024. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-google-deepmind-researchers-assemble-luminaries-across-music-and-tech-to-launch-udio-a-new-ai-powered-app-that-allows-anyone-to-create-extraordinary-music-in-an-instant-302113166.html Accessed 2026-05-19. [^11]: Wikipedia. "Udio." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udio Accessed 2026-05-19. [^12]: VentureBeat. "Former Google DeepMind researchers launch AI-powered music creation app Udio." https://venturebeat.com/ai/former-google-deepmind-researchers-launch-ai-powered-music-creation-app-udio Accessed 2026-05-19. [^13]: Music Business Worldwide. "Udio admits to scraping YouTube audio for AI training in answer to Sony Music lawsuit." https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/udio-admits-to-scraping-youtube-audio-for-ai-training-in-answer-to-sony-music-lawsuit/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^14]: Music Ally. "Suno and Udio slam label lawsuits... but the RIAA hits back." August 2, 2024. https://musically.com/2024/08/02/suno-and-udio/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^15]: Crowell & Moring LLP. "Major American Music Labels Sue Generative AI Music Platforms in First Case of Its Kind Over AI Audio." https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/major-american-music-labels-sue-generative-ai-music-platforms-in-first-case-of-its-kind-over-ai-audio Accessed 2026-05-19. [^16]: Rolling Stone. "RIAA Sues AI Music Generators For Copyright Infringement." June 24, 2024. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/record-labels-sue-music-generators-suno-and-udio-1235042056/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^17]: TechCrunch. "AI music startup Suno claims training model on copyrighted music is 'fair use.'" August 1, 2024. https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/01/ai-music-startup-suno-response-riaa-lawsuit/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^18]: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. "What UMG's AI Partnerships with Udio and Stability AI Mean for Artists and the Music Industry." https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/client-alert/what-umg-s-ai-partnerships-with-udio-and-stability-ai-mean-for-artists-and-the-music-industry Accessed 2026-05-19. [^19]: PPC Land. "Music artists demand transparency on Universal's AI partnership with Udio." https://ppc.land/music-artists-demand-transparency-on-universals-ai-partnership-with-udio/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^20]: Chat GPT Is Eating the World. "Warner Music and Udio reach settlement, following similar one by UMG Recordings. Sony Music left in lawsuit." November 19, 2025. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/11/19/warner-music-and-udio-reach-settlement-following-similar-one-by-umg-recordings-sony-music-left-in-lawsuit/ Accessed 2026-05-19. [^21]: Chartlex. "Music Industry AI Lawsuits Tracker 2026: Live Status." https://www.chartlex.com/blog/business/music-industry-ai-lawsuits-tracker-2026 Accessed 2026-05-19. [^22]: Music Connection. "The Legal Beat: UMG Settles Copyright Case With A.I. Company." https://www.musicconnection.com/the-legal-beat-umg-settles-copyright-case-with-a-i-company/ Accessed 2026-05-19.