Suno Files Subpoena Demands Against Apple

Photo Credit: Alexander Shatov

Apple fires back against Suno with heavy ammunition in its move to quash the subpoena, arguing that it’s superfluous and goes well beyond what Suno reasonably needs for the case.

As Apple Music is added to the growing list of subpoenas in the rapidly escalating battle between Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Suno, the tech giant has quickly fired back, filing a motion to quash the subpoena. Apple argues that the request is unnecessary and extends well beyond anything Suno reasonably needs in this case, while Suno argues that the information it is seeking is critical to its defense.

It’s a direct pushback against Suno’s extensive discovery demands, which Apple argues are completely irrelevant, overbroad, and burdensome. Apple argues that it has already fulfilled its necessary obligations in the case by producing relevant data and declarations regarding Suno-generated tracks on its platform as evidence in the analysis that Suno’s “fair-use” claim would cause significant market harm.

Specifically, Suno is attempting to compel Apple to testify on four specific topics: whether Apple Music could commercially remain viable without major record label catalogs; details of Apple’s ongoing licensing, royalty, and generative AI negotiations with Universal Music and Sony; its royalty-calculation provisions and guaranteed minimums paid to the labels, particularly those that distinguish between AI and non-AI content; and the prevalence of streaming fraud on Apple Music alongside all internal or external communications the company has had regarding Suno or the case.

Apple asserts that Suno’s remaining requests seek highly confidential, competitive business information that is disproportionate to the case at hand. Moreover, the company says any remaining information it does need can be obtained directly from the active parties in the lawsuit rather than pulling a major digital service provider into the fray.

“Apple has cooperated with both parties for more than a year, exchanging over 90 emails and having over 10 conferrals, to negotiate a reasonable scope of non-party discovery and to provide the relevant subset,” court documents read. “And Apple has complied.”

Apple’s motion to quash, or to alternatively secure a protective order shielding this information, is currently on the docket for December 1. Notably, as Judge Susan Van Keulen recused herself from the case on October 21, the motion will be heard by whichever judge is assigned to the proceeding.