Steve Berman, Hagens Berman’s managing partner and co-founder. Photo Credit: Michelle Poole

The artist-led class action suits against Udio and Suno are moving full steam ahead: Now, the former AI platform is staring down an amended complaint, and “one of the most feared plaintiffs’ firms in the nation” has signed on to represent the allegedly shortchanged creatives.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs just recently submitted the bolstered action and officially confirmed the addition of Seattle-headquartered Hagens Berman. On the “officially” front, May brought with it a withdrawal motion from different counsel – plus a bit of discussion about the exiting firm’s precise role in the litigation.

But the concise version is that Delgado Entertainment Law founder Krystle Delgado remains the lead attorney in both cases. And her firm is joined by Hagens Berman, which has secured sizable settlements in courtroom confrontations involving Google ($90 million), Apple ($100 million in an App Store suit, $568 million in an e-books price-fixing complaint), and a number of others.

Evidently, the “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm” award winner has set its sights on the red-hot AI arena. Besides stepping into the artists’ corner against Udio and Suno, 33-year-old Hagens Berman is spearheading a wrongful death case against OpenAI.

“Independent artists and producers represent the heart and soul of the music industry, and in the landscape of AI, they stand to lose the most,” added Steve Berman, Hagens Berman’s managing partner and co-founder. “We believe that Udio and Suno have blatantly stolen works from millions of independent artists and have violated the terms of online platforms in order to do so.”

That sums up the amended Udio lawsuit, which still accuses the company of violating the DMCA when allegedly obtaining all manner of songs from DSPs for training.

Meanwhile, a distinct proposed sub-class would cover musicians and rightsholders “whose works were copied, ingested, or used” during Udio’s training process. (Specifically, this refers to compositions and recordings “made available on internet-based streaming services since January 1, 2021.”)

Likewise featured in the complaint is a proposed “misappropriation subclass” for those “who created, performed, or produced original musical works made publicly available online, and whose names, voices, likenesses, producer tags, or other identifying elements of artistic persona were misappropriated, used, or exploited by Udio.”

Put differently, there’s considerable legal firepower behind indie artists’ all-encompassing suits against Suno and Udio.

Throw in ongoing infringement actions from the majors (including both Sony Music and Universal Music against Suno), music producers, and others yet, and it seems safe to say that the AI space is heavy on litigation – some targeting the majors themselves.

But as many know, it’s also heavy on funding; sweeping copyright complaints aside, unconcerned investors powered Suno’s $400 million Series D earlier in June. Despite varying opinions in the “walled garden” debate, does this mean additional licensing pacts and settlements are in the near- or medium-term cards?

Time will tell, though at the intersection of the sky-high valuations and the sweeping alleged infringement in question, it’s worth reiterating that litigants are pushing to obtain huge sums. Jamendo, for instance, sent Nvidia a roughly $20 million invoice for allegedly training on a small portion of its hosted tracks without authorization.