Udio is contesting Sony Music‘s claim that it copied 30,117 of the major’s sound recordings to train its generative AI models.
The AI music company has told a New York court that any copying of protected material was “quintessential fair use,” and that if it is found to have infringed, damages should be “as low as $200 per work infringed.”
Udio filed its answer to the lawsuit on Thursday (August 27) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The filing, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here.
Sony Music Entertainment and nine affiliated labels sued Udio on July 20, over 30k+ recordings the same court had refused to let the major add to its existing case against the company.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied that request on June 29, keeping the original lawsuit at 333 works while noting that Sony remained free to pursue the rest of its claims elsewhere.
Sony is the only major music company that has not settled with Udio and signed a licensing agreement.
The new suit brings three claims: (i) copying of recordings released after 1972, (ii) copying of older recordings, and (iii) that Udio circumvented YouTube‘s technical protections via so-called ‘stream ripping’.
Sony is seeking damages set by law of up to $150,000 for each recording infringed, up to $2,500 for each act of circumvention, and a court order stopping further copying.
Across 30,117 recordings, that ceiling carries theoretical exposure of more than $4.5 billion.
Udio‘s answer puts forward a different number.
“To the extent Plaintiffs establish any act of infringement, that infringement was innocent, allowing for the Court to reduce any award of statutory damages to an amount as low as $200 per work infringed,” the filing states.
At that rate, the same 30,117 recordings would carry exposure of just over $6 million.
On the question at the center of both cases, Udio repeats the position it took in its answer in the original lawsuit in April.
The filing states: “To the extent there is copying of copyrightable expression, that copying constitutes fair use… Udio‘s AI tool uses a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product. This is quintessential fair use.”
Udio again accuses Sony of misusing its market power with the suit.
“On information and belief, Plaintiffs have engaged in anticompetitive activities that extend an unlawful monopoly over the production and commercialization of music,” the Udio filing reads.
A separate defense argues that the plaintiffs “have suffered no provable injury as a result of Udio‘s alleged copying.”
Udio further argues that Sony cannot bring the YouTube claim at all, on the grounds that the labels are not “person[s] injured” by the alleged circumvention.
On the YouTube allegations themselves, the answer restates admissions Udio made in April.
“Udio admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data,” the filing states, adding that “it acquired some of its training data by utilizing YT-DLP.”
According to the filing, Sony has told Udio it ran a process involving content identification company Audible Magic to establish which of its recordings sit in the training data – hence the identification of the 30k+ tracks.
Udio’s answer does not concede that it ever trained its model on the 30,117 recordings.
Udio says it “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs’ representations regarding the results of their Audible Magic investigation, and on that basis denies them.”
The answer also confirms that Udio “has partnered with Audible Magic to watermark Udio outputs and to create guardrails to prevent users from uploading content to Udio that they do not own.”
Udio announced that partnership in April 2025.
Elsewhere, the filing confirms that certain of the plaintiffs have had access to Udio’s source code and training data since March 20, 2025, in the course of discovery in the original case.
They “have accessed Udio‘s source code and training data numerous times in a controlled environment in secured rooms located within the office of Udio‘s outside counsel,” the answer states.
Udio further confirms that it has settled with the two other major music groups – Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group – and that those agreements “include licensing terms.”
It says the same of its deals with Merlin, Kobalt, Believe, and the National Music Publishers’ Association.
(UMG settled and struck a licensing deal with Udio in October 2025. Warner followed in November.)
Udio is asking the court to throw out all of Sony‘s claims permanently, and to order the major to cover its legal costs.
It also disputes that every one of Sony‘s claims can be put to a jury.
The filing states that Udio “denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the requested relief, or to any relief whatsoever.”Music Business Worldwide
