AI music startup Udio has denied Sony Music Entertainment’s copyright infringement claims while acknowledging that it used audio scraped from YouTube to train its models.
In a filing with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday (April 29), which you can read here, Udio answered Sony Music’s amended complaint, which also names Arista Music and Arista Records as plaintiffs.
Udio admitted that its models were built by feeding the system with “a vast amount of different kinds of sound recordings” gathered from publicly available sources, from which the models derived “a complex collection of statistical insights about the auditory characteristics of those recordings.”
The startup also acknowledged generating music files within seconds of receiving a user prompt, and that it charges users monthly fees to use its product and produce digital files.
“Udio admits that its product was originally free to users, with a limit of 600 music files per month. Udio further admits that on May 8, 2024, Udio introduced subscription tiers, with options that range from $10 a month for 1,200 credits (which equate to 1,200 30-second clips per month), to $30 a month for 4,800 credits (which equates to 4,800 30-second clips per month),” according to the filing.
“Udio admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data.”
Udio’s answer to amended complaint
On the YouTube ripping allegations, Udio’s response was direct: “Udio admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data,” adding that “it acquired some of its training data by utilizing YT-DLP.”
Major record labels sued Udio and its rival Suno in June 2024. In August 2024, Udio and Suno pretty much admitted that they used copyrighted recordings from the recording companies that sued them. However, they claimed that the use of copyrighted materials – owned by Sony Music Group, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group – falls under the “fair use” exemption to US copyright law.
While Universal Music and Warner Music Group dropped their lawsuits against Udio after reaching settlements in October and in November, respectively, the Sony Music lawsuit against Udio remains.
Before UMG and Warner Music dropped their lawsuits, the labels amended their complaint in September 2025 to include claims that Udio “illegally scraped” YouTube videos in order to collect content on which to train its AI models.
Udio then filed a motion to dismiss the labels’ charge of illegal scraping of YouTube videos in October 2025, arguing that US copyright law doesn’t actually criminalize downloading of videos that are available to the public.
The YouTube scraping claims are “a gambit to try to evade application of the fair use doctrine,” lawyers for Udio wrote in the motion, which can be read in full here.
The record labels then shot back at Udio’s statement, saying the company “mischaracterizes” the labels’ legal arguments “and the legal landscape.”
The amended complaint in October (read here) alleged in paragraph 122 that Udio violated copyright laws by circumventing technological measures implemented by YouTube that controlled access to copyrighted works. In its response filed last week, Udio said “The allegations in this paragraph contain legal conclusions to which no response is required.”
“To the extent a response is required, Udio lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph concerning Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings, and on that basis denies those allegations. Udio admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data, but otherwise denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.”
Udio reaffirmed its “fair use” argument after the labels including Sony in October said “Udio cannot avoid liability for its willful copyright infringement by claiming fair use.”
“Udio admits that it obtained audio data from YouTube for use as training data, but otherwise denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.”
Udio’s answer to amended complaint
In its latest response, Udio said: “To the extent there is copying of copyrightable expression, that copying constitutes fair use pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107. 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 accused Sony of copyright misuse, arguing: “Plaintiffs have engaged in anticompetitive activities that extend an unlawful monopoly over the production and commercialization of music.”
“Plaintiffs have engaged in anticompetitive activities that extend an unlawful monopoly over the production and commercialization of music.”
Udio’s answer to amended complaint
The AI company’s response comes weeks after Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected its motion to dismiss Sony’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act circumvention claim, finding Sony had “plausibly allege[d] that YouTube employs technological measures that regulate access to its content and that Defendant circumvented them,” according to the April 15 order, which you can read here.
However, Judge Hellerstein said whether YouTube’s measures ultimately constitute access controls “requires a greater factual record than the pleadings contain.” The judge left the door open for Udio to renew its arguments “after a factual record is developed.”
Udio is asking the court to dismiss all claims with prejudice.
Music Business Worldwide
