Suno loses lawsuit brought by GEMA

In the legal disputes between musicians, rights collectors and AI companies, GEMA has achieved another interim victory today: The Munich I Regional Court, responsible for civil proceedings, granted a lawsuit by the rights collectors on Friday morning. This was intended to prohibit the US AI company Suno, as an example, from imitating nine well-known songs by German artists without permission. “Atemlos” by Helene Fischer, the 1980s classics “Big in Japan” and “Forever Young” by the Münster band Alphaville, the Boney M. hits “Daddy Cool” from 1976 and “Rasputin” from 1978, written by Frank Farian, Lou Bega's 1999 version of “Mambo No. 5”, as well as three other titles by an internationally known German pop duo, for which GEMA provides examples on its website, Suno must now no longer imitate in a confusingly similar way.

Continue after ad

Inspiration vs. Storage

This adds another ruling to the dispute over possible copyright infringements by AI companies. The debate about what the legal requirements for training Artificial Intelligence (AI) permit and where copyright infringement begins is currently being conducted primarily in courts – but so far, both sides have been able to cite legal uncertainties. A core question: Where is the line between presumably permissible tokenization and copyright-infringing storage? This is precisely what the 42nd Civil Chamber of the Munich I Regional Court had to examine in the proceedings decided on Friday (42 O 763/25). This is because the Gesellschaft für Musikalische Aufführungsrechte (GEMA) sued the audio AI provider Suno, where users can generate songs via prompts, for this reason.

GEMA's accusation: It's all just stolen. Suno had not only used existing works for simple training of its model – but had memorized, i.e. stored, them in their entirety or essential parts. From the plaintiffs' perspective, the result would be too similar to the originals to be covered by copyright exceptions for AI training.

Suno had precisely denied this in court. Neither the songs were stored as such nor was recognizability given. Furthermore, it was not the provider but the users who were responsible for prompting the AI – and thus, if such an infringement existed, would be responsible for the copyright infringement. GEMA demanded that Suno cease and desist and provide further information in order to assert claims for damages.

Judge follows GEMA's arguments

The judge at the Munich I Regional Court has now followed GEMA's reasoning and ordered Suno to cease and desist on Friday. However, the ruling is not yet legally binding. Due to its fundamental significance, an appeal to the Munich Higher Regional Court is likely. However, if it were to stand, GEMA could then also claim damages from Suno. Suno has the financial means necessary for a longer dispute: only in June, the company founded in 2023 had raised 400 million US dollars in a funding round.

Numerous cases occupy courts and politics

Continue after ad

In November 2025, GEMA had already achieved a legal interim victory against OpenAI before the same court – however, this lawsuit concerned not the musical works, but the song lyrics. A final clarification of the legal situation regarding AI training would, however, be reserved for the European Court of Justice, as the underlying questions concern not only German law but also the provisions of the so-called DSM Directive 2019/790. This defines legal exceptions to copyright protection. The ruling in the case Like Company v. Google, which could provide further indications for the interpretation of the DSM Directive exceptions, is eagerly awaited. In the European institutions, it is also repeatedly discussed whether amendments for better protection of rights holders are necessary.