The music industry does not have one position on generative AI. Different rights holders have taken different routes against different companies, and sometimes different routes against the same company. This piece lays out what is publicly known as of September 2026 and where the open questions are. It is an overview built from reported facts, and the interpretation is labeled as such.

Route one: settle, then license

In October 2025, Universal Music Group settled its lawsuit with Udio and agreed to license recorded music and publishing for a new platform launching in 2026. Udio’s service was to stay available in the meantime, with creations held in a “walled garden,” plus fingerprinting and filtering. Warner Music Group reached its own settlements and licensing arrangements with both Udio and Suno in late 2025.

In August 2026, BMG announced a global licensing alliance with Suno covering recordings and publishing for participating artists and songwriters. BMG was not one of the plaintiffs in the RIAA litigation. In September, Universal announced a multi-year deal with ElevenLabs for a licensed fan-remix platform.

Route two: keep suing

Not everyone has settled. Music Business Worldwide reports that Universal and Sony remain plaintiffs against Suno in the US, seeking to add 61,026 works to the case. Reporting from earlier in the year identified Sony as the last major still in litigation with Udio. As of publication we have not seen either company announce a settlement.

Route three: let the courts and societies decide

In Germany, collecting society GEMA won a ruling against Suno on July 31, in which the Munich Regional Court found breaches of US and German law. The ruling is not final. Separately, the American Federation of Musicians sued Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group, alleging that the labels licensed members’ work to technology companies for AI training without the artists’ consent and without sharing the resulting settlement money, according to Tech Times. Those are allegations, not findings.

What the pattern shows

AnalysisThe deals share features: licensed catalogs, participation limited to artists who opt in, closed or traceable environments, and fan-facing products in place of unrestricted generation. Suno’s new download caps and watermarking fit the same direction. The unresolved question is the one the union lawsuit raises. When a label licenses its catalog, who decides whether a given artist’s work is included, and who shares in the money? BMG’s deal is described as opt-in for artists and songwriters. The other announcements say participation is by artist but give few details.

AnalysisThere is also no single legal answer yet. The GEMA ruling shows a court in one country applying two countries’ copyright law to training done abroad. US litigation over fair use is still open, and reports on when a US ruling might arrive have differed. Anyone building a business on AI-generated music should assume the rules may differ by country and may change.

What musicians can do with this

  • Check whether your label, publisher or distributor has signed an AI licensing deal, and whether your agreement gives them the right to include your work.
  • If you use AI tools to make music, read the terms of the specific tool. Download caps and licensing rules are changing.
  • If you distribute AI-assisted music, expect distributors and platforms to ask how it was made.