Udio moves to dismiss artist lawsuits as AI music training disputes escalate

The company, which has recently struck licensing arrangements with major music industry players including Merlin and Kobalt, is facing allegations from artists that it trained its systems on copyrighted recordings without authorisation.

Two separate lawsuits filed in 2025 accuse Udio of using unauthorised material, including claims that it engaged in “stream-ripping” from platforms such as YouTube before using the recordings to train generative models capable of producing derivative works from user prompts.

In a filing to an Illinois federal court in one of the cases, brought by plaintiffs including Attack the Sound frontman David Woulard, Udio argued that the court lacks jurisdiction over the company.

“Plaintiffs’ inability to cite a single case supporting their position about personal jurisdiction in the era of the internet is telling: there is no support for finding personal jurisdiction over Udio,” the company said in its legal submission.

It added: “No aspect of the model’s training was directed at Illinois, occurred in Illinois, or was influenced by the existence of Illinois subscribers. Plaintiffs’ core claims have nothing to do with Illinois.”

Udio is also seeking dismissal on the basis that the Woulard case duplicates earlier litigation involving similar claims. It described the newer action as “a duplicative case” that should be dismissed under Seventh Circuit standards.

However, the plaintiffs argue that Udio has sufficient commercial ties to Illinois to justify the jurisdiction of its courts. They contend that the company operates a nationwide subscription service that regularly contracts with and bills Illinois users while delivering services into the state.

“Udio’s jurisdictional argument rests on a premise the law does not support: that a company may operate a nationwide, subscription-based commercial enterprise, one that repeatedly contracts with Illinois residents, repeatedly bills them, repeatedly performs the core service for them, and repeatedly delivers the resulting product into Illinois—and yet remain immune from suit here because it has no office or employees in the state,” the plaintiffs said in court documents.

In a separate case brought by musician Tony Justice and 5th Wheel Records, Udio is also seeking dismissal of contributory copyright infringement claims, citing the US Supreme Court ruling in Cox v. Sony Music.

“Under Cox,” Udio said in a filing, “Plaintiffs’ allegations of contributory copyright infringement (Count II) are deficient and should be dismissed.”

The company argued that the precedent limits liability for service providers unless they actively induce infringement or design services specifically to facilitate it.

However, the plaintiffs argue that the Cox ruling does not apply to their case, claiming it addresses different legal questions and does not cover Udio’s alleged conduct. Their legal representatives also contend that their claims relate to direct infringement rather than contributory liability.

“Cox applies to passive neutral intermediaries and does not address platforms that engage in direct, volitional copyright infringement,” attorney Krystle M. Delgado said in a response filing.

Udio is also seeking dismissal of claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and allegations of unfair competition linked to the alleged circumvention of anti-piracy protections.

The disputes come as legal pressure continues across the AI music sector, where companies are increasingly facing claims over how training data is sourced and whether generative outputs infringe existing copyrights. Udio has reached settlements with Warner Music and Universal Music, while litigation involving Sony Music remains ongoing.