Suno, an AI music product, hit with two more lawsuits as rights holders accuse it of cloning Elvis and Eminem works
AI music platform Suno has been hit with two more lawsuits, both disputes pointing to its use of artificial intelligence to generate imitation or cloned music works. Around November 6, 2026, the rights holders for Elvis Presley, including Authentic Brands Group, Elvis Presley Enterprises, and Raleigh Music Publishing, as well as Eminem music publisher Eight Mile Style, separately filed lawsuits against Suno in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Elvis-related lawsuit accuses Suno of copyright infringement and of violating Tennessee’s 2024 Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act (the ELVIS Act), alleging that it allowed users to generate tracks that mimic Presley’s “rich timbre” without authorization. The Eight Mile Style lawsuit says that, without permission, Suno used about 269 Eminem works under its control, including “Lose Yourself,” “Without Me,” and “The Real Slim Shady,” to train its model and generated similar songs and lyrics, seeking up to $150,000 in statutory damages per work, for a total of about $41 million. Both cases provide examples of generated songs as evidence; they are currently at the allegation stage, and the court has not ruled.
A Suno spokesperson responded that the company aims to help users create original music rather than use others’ names or likenesses, and prohibits unauthorized use of artists’ works; the platform does not allow prompts specifying particular artists’ names and songs, and it works with third parties to screen uploaded audio and lyrics to prevent abuse, while continuously strengthening safeguards.
Original source:
Title: Elvis Music Owners, Eminem Publisher File Sprawling New Lawsuits Against AI Music Generator Suno: ‘The Next Elvis Won’t Pick Up a Guitar’ Publisher: Variety Publication date: 2026-11-07 URL: https://variety.com/2026/music/news/elvis-eminem-sue-suno-ai-music-generator-1236941798/ Source type: media report Verification status: relevant passages were actually read in this instance, verification date 2026-11-08 Supported content: core facts including the two lawsuits’ plaintiffs, key allegations (copyright and the ELVIS Act), Eight Mile Style’s approximately 269 works and damages claim, and Suno’s response statement
ABAB AI Insight
Suno was founded around 2022 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was founded by Mikey Shulman and others, and offers a service that generates complete music from text prompts. The company completed a $400 million financing round in June 2026, with a valuation of $5.4 billion, and has attracted more than 100 million users and 2 million paying subscribers. It has previously faced multiple lawsuits from UMG, Sony Music, Reservoir Media, independent musician Jason Isbell, and others, with the main disputes centered on the source of training data and whether the outputs constitute infringement; Warner Music Group reached a settlement with Suno in 2025 and shifted to a licensing partnership.
The capital logic of this lawsuit is that rights holders are trying to use copyright and state law (the ELVIS Act targeting voice cloning) to block unauthorized model training and generation, forcing the platform toward a formal licensing model. Eight Mile Style is seeking about $41 million in damages, while the Presley side is emphasizing rights in identity and timbre. Suno’s business model depends on large-scale user-generated content and subscription revenue; if the court finds that the outputs constitute direct infringement or that voice cloning is unlawful, it may require deleting related training data, paying damages, or adjusting prompting mechanisms, thereby affecting its bargaining position with record companies.
Compared with previous lawsuits against AI music/text models such as Udio and Anthropic, rights holders generally argue that copying during the training stage constitutes infringement, while similarity in the generation stage and prompt restrictions have become key points of contention. Unlike traditional sampling, AI generation does not directly lift clips, but instead uses model weights to achieve approximate style or melody, which leaves the legal boundary between “cloning” and “inspiration” unclear. In earlier cases, Suno argued that users prompting for “the style of a certain artist” is not illegal, and in court filings it admitted that it had not deleted all training recordings.
These new lawsuits place Suno’s user growth and valuation under greater legal risk. If the court supports the voice-cloning and copyright claims, it could push the industry from “train and use” toward stricter licensing and provenance mechanisms; conversely, if the generated output is found not to constitute infringement, it could accelerate the expansion of AI music platforms. Both cases are still at the initial filing stage, and Suno said it will continue to strengthen safeguards and denied unlawful use.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
When voice cloning and copyright claims proceed in parallel, state laws such as the ELVIS Act provide rights holders with a remedy path independent of federal copyright.
A platform’s ban on specific prompts does not automatically eliminate the infringement risk posed by generated output that is similar to the original work.