German Court Orders AI Platform Suno to Pay for Unlicensed Songs
Munich, Saturday, 8 August 2026.
A landmark German court decision forced artificial intelligence platform Suno to disclose financial records, ruling that using copyrighted music to train commercial software without a license violates intellectual property rights.
The Munich Court Ruling and Specific Infringements
On 31 July 2026, the Munich Regional Court issued a decisive verdict against artificial intelligence music platform Suno, determining that the company infringed copyright laws by training models on protected works without authorization [2][3]. The litigation, initiated by German music rights organization GEMA in January 2025, focused on six specific compositions including Boney M.’s “Daddy Cool” and Alphaville’s “Big in Japan” [2][3]. During proceedings, GEMA demonstrated that Suno’s v3.5 and v4 models could reproduce the melody, harmony, and rhythm of original compositions when prompted with song titles and lyrics [3]. The court rejected Suno’s defense that its models only learned mathematical patterns, concluding instead that the systems had effectively memorized the copyrighted works to a degree where coincidence was unlikely [3]. This ruling marks GEMA’s second legal victory against an AI company in nine months, following a November 2025 decision against OpenAI regarding memorized song lyrics [2].
International Legal Implications and Fair Use
A significant aspect of the judgment involves the application of copyright law across international borders, as Suno is a U.S.-based company [2]. The court established that German law applies to the training process because the outputs are served to users in Germany, regardless of where the initial training occurred [3]. Legal scholars note that the German Copyright Act has no fair use provision, and German courts have no experience applying fair use concepts typically relied upon by U.S. tech firms [1]. Professor Edward Lee of Santa Clara School of Law criticized the decision for potentially ignoring international legal comity, arguing countries do not typically decide the legality of conduct outside their borders [1]. Despite these criticisms, the court ruled that AI services must obtain appropriate licenses even under U.S. copyright law principles when operating within the German market [1][2].
Financial Disclosure and Industry Repercussions
Beyond the infringement finding, the court issued an injunction and a disclosure order requiring Suno to reveal financial records linked to the infringing works [2]. This transparency measure allows damages to be calculated based on actual revenue rather than statutory fees, which in the U.S. can reach up to $150,000 per infringed work [2]. For the six specific compositions identified in the lawsuit, potential statutory damages could theoretically reach 900000 dollars under U.S. standards, though German damages will rely on revenue disclosure [2]. The ruling also casts scrutiny on a licensing deal Warner Music signed with Suno approximately 8 months prior to the verdict, as the court now validates that Suno built its product on unlicensed content [2][4]. Suno has stated it disagrees with the ruling and is evaluating an appeal to a higher German court, though the first-instance judgment remains enforceable while the appeal process is pending [2][3].