Observed facts: Music Business Worldwide reports that Sony Music Entertainment and nine affiliated labels filed a second suit against Udio on July 20, asserting claims over 30,117 recordings. It also reports that a judge on June 29 denied Sony’s request to add those recordings to its existing case, while leaving open a separate action. These are procedural facts reported by the source; the copying allegations remain contested.
Mechanism: The court refused the requested amendment, and Sony responded by filing a separate complaint; the source says the recordings were identified through audio fingerprinting of training data accessed in discovery.
Why now: The new lawsuit turns the court’s refusal to expand the original case into a fresh legal action, rather than a final ruling on whether the alleged copying was lawful. It brings the contested training-data question back before the court through a separate filing.
Implications: For AI music services, licensing agreements with some rightsholders do not necessarily close disputes with others or resolve claims about past training. For builders, evidence about data provenance and rights may matter beyond model behavior or output controls.
Evidence boundary: The supplied report describes allegations in Sony’s complaint and Udio’s fair-use position; it does not establish infringement or predict the outcome. The reported 30,117 figure is the set asserted in this suit, not an adjudicated count.
Watch: Watch whether Udio contests the new complaint and how the court handles the distinct claims over post-1972 recordings, pre-1972 recordings, and alleged circumvention of technological measures.