IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: AI music website wins partial dismissal of copyright suit, (May 27, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The Court declined to dismiss a claim alleging Udio circumvented technological measures.

AI music website Udio won partial dismissal of a lawsuit stemming from allegations by recording artists that the company trained its generative AI models on copyrighted sound recordings without authorization. The Federal District Court in New York City found that Plaintiffs failed to describe with sufficient specificity a claim alleging that Udio prepared derivative works based upon copyrighted works, but the Court gave Plaintiffs time to amend the complaint. The Court also held that claims asserted under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act or Tennessee common law were preempted by the Copyright Act. Still, the Court denied dismissal of a claim alleging Udio circumvented technological measures (Justice v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-05026-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiffs, a putative class of independent recording artists, sued Defendant, Uncharted Labs, Inc, d/b/a Udio.com. Udio engages in AI music generation services and allows users to enter prompts and generate music in various styles, including mimicking particular instruments, genres, and specific artists. Plaintiffs allege Udio trains its generative AI models on their songs, including copyrighted sound recordings without authorization, to create competing music in the same marketplace. Plaintiffs allege Udio obtained the files by pirating sound recordings from streaming platforms, including YouTube and Spotify, bypassing technological protection measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the underlying media.

Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second, third, and fourth causes of action, which include allegations that Defendant prepared derivative works based upon copyrighted works, circumvented technological measures, and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act or Tennessee Common Law.

Second cause of action. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action. It alleged that Defendant violated 17 U.S.C. § 106(2), which provides that the owner of a copyright has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize the preparation of “derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” The Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ claim lacked sufficient specificity to proceed as pleaded because Plaintiffs failed to identify specific Udio output substantially similar to any work they own. Instead, the Court observed, Plaintiffs relied on conclusory allegations relating to their own works, the similarities of Udio outputs to works owned by third parties, and the general assertion that Udio’s system is capable of the preparation of derivative works. Plaintiffs argued that discovery is required to demonstrate these similarities, but the Court noted that Udio is publicly accessible and that Plaintiffs are capable of demonstrating infringing outputs if they exist. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the second cause of action.

Third cause of action. The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the third cause of action, which alleges that Udio circumvented technological measures in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201. The Court noted that to state a claim under this statute, Plaintiffs must allege that YouTube and Spotify maintain “technological measure[s] that effectively control[] access” to copyrighted works and that Udio “circumvented” those technological measures.” The Court noted that it ruled previously in a different case against Udio involving the same cause of action that the complaint there plausibly alleged that “YouTube employs technological measures that regulate access to its content and that Defendant circumvented them under the pleading standard set by Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Sony Music Ent., et al., v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., et al., No. 24 Civ. 4777 (AKH), 2026 WL 1019199, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2026). The Court noted that whether the technological measures at issue “ultimately constitute access controls within the meaning of § 1201 requires a greater factual record than the pleadings contain,” and that Defendants would be able to renew their arguments after the development of a factual record. The Court said it saw no reason to deviate from that reasoning and ruled similarly here, noting that Udio may renew its argument after the development of a factual record.

Fourth cause of action. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action, which alleged violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act or Tennessee common law. The Court reasoned that both claims fail because they are preempted by the Copyright Act. The “subject matter” prong is satisfied because Plaintiffs’ sound recordings are works of authorship protected by 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(7). The equivalence (or “general scope”) prong is also met. Plaintiffs argued that extra elements in their claim allowed it to survive, asserting that Defendant’s actions created an unfair market advantage distinct from the alleged copyright infringement. However, the Court said Plaintiffs’ argument amounted to a description of alleged harms resulting from the alleged infringement, which is not qualitatively distinct from a copyright infringement claim. The Court also said Plaintiffs cannot avoid preemption because putative Subclass Members lack copyright registration.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-05026-AKH.

Judge: Hellerstein, A.

Attorneys: Josh Sanford (Sanford Law Firm, PLLC) for Anthony Justice. Andrew Gass (Latham & Watkins, LLP) for Uncharted Labs, Inc.

Companies: Uncharted Labs, Inc.

Cases: Copyright AINews NewYorkNews TechnologyInternet