Suno faces new lawsuits over Elvis and Eminem music rights

New legal challenges for Suno

The AI music generation platform Suno is facing fresh legal hurdles as rights holders for Elvis Presley and Eminem's publishing move to block its practices. These lawsuits were filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, targeting the way the company builds its underlying models. The complaints argue that Suno used protected music and lyrics without obtaining the necessary permissions.

The Presley complaint, filed by Authentic Brands Group and Raleigh Music Publishing, specifically alleges that the company copied 859 of the singer's compositions. This move represents a significant escalation in the ongoing debate over how much of a creator's body of work can be used to train generative systems. It puts Suno in the crosshairs of some of the most recognizable catalogs in music history.

Simultaneously, Eight Mile Style, which manages hundreds of Eminem's songwriting rights, filed a similar complaint. While Eminem himself is not a plaintiff, his publisher argues that Suno's system allows users to generate tracks that imitate his specific work. The suit points to the unauthorized use of hits like "Lose Yourself" and "The Real Slim Shady" to train the AI's capabilities.

Beyond copyright to likeness

One of the most significant aspects of the Presley lawsuit is its invocation of Tennessee's ELVIS Act. This 2024 state law provides a specific legal framework to protect an artist's voice and likeness from unauthorized commercial use. By bringing this up, the rights holders are moving beyond traditional copyright and into the realm of personality rights.

Suno has previously defended its practices by stating that it blocks specific artist names in user prompts to prevent direct imitation. However, legal experts and observers suggest that a name filter may be an insufficient defense. If a user can describe a recognizable sound or style without using a specific name, the model may still produce a result that mimics a famous singer.

This creates a difficult technical and legal hurdle for Suno. The company claims it was built to help people create original music rather than trading on the likenesses of famous stars. Nevertheless, the ability of a model to be steered toward a specific, recognizable vocal style remains a central point of contention in the new filings.

The cost of unlicensed data

Suno is currently navigating a complex landscape of different legal settlements and ongoing litigation. For example, Warner Music Group recently settled its suit with the startup and signed a licensing partnership. This deal demonstrated that major catalog owners are willing to accept licensing and equity-style terms rather than pursuing a total ban on the technology.

However, the Elvis and Eminem suits test a different part of the market: the independent and estate-controlled catalogs. These works often sit outside of major-label deals, meaning every individual holder could potentially file their own complaint. This creates a fragmented legal environment where Suno must defend against many different entities at once.

The financial stakes for Suno are high, as the company recently raised $400 million at a $5.4 billion valuation. Investors are watching closely to see how the company handles these disputes. While Suno has declined to comment immediately on the new suits, the outcome could significantly impact its ability to scale its business model without paying out massive licensing fees.

Global and domestic precedents

The legal pressure on Suno is not limited to the United States. In July 2026, a court in Munich ruled that Suno broke copyright law by training on songs from the GEMA repertoire. This included famous tracks like "Rasputin" and "Mambo No. 5," marking a significant victory for European copyright protections.

This ruling followed a similar win for GEMA against OpenAI in November 2025. These international decisions suggest that courts are increasingly skeptical of the "fair use" defense when it comes to training AI on copyrighted music. It indicates that the legal standard for what constitutes