Elvis and Eminem rights holders sue AI music generator Suno

By Amara Osei

Two groups of music-rights holders (owners or licensors of copyrighted works) have sued Suno, an AI (artificial intelligence) music generator, in separate cases with different legal theories, according to the complaints. One targets Elvis Presley’s voice and identity; the other targets Eminem recordings and lyrics.

Suno said the company exists “to help people create new and original music, not to profit from anyone’s name or image.” The one-sentence statement did not address either complaint, the cited recordings or the examples of generated music.

What do the Presley rights holders allege?

A plaintiff group that includes Authentic Brands Group and Raleigh Music Publishing filed its case in California, according to the Presley complaint. The group alleges copyright infringement and exploitation of Presley’s identity because users can enter the singer’s name in a text prompt, or instruction to the system, when generating new songs.

The same plaintiffs argue that Suno violated the ELVIS Act, a 2024 law that prohibits AI companies from cloning singers’ voices. Its full name is “Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security.” The complaint says the platform produces tracks that reproduce Presley’s “rich vocal timbre” without authorization.

Case point: The Presley case combines a copyright claim with an allegation that Suno reproduced a named singer’s voice without consent.

What does Eight Mile Style claim?

Eight Mile Style, the company holding rights to hundreds of Eminem recordings, sued Suno in a separate case. Its complaint alleges that users can create songs and lyrics that replicate protected tracks, including “Lose Yourself,” “Without Me,” and “The Real Slim Shady,” thereby infringing the publisher’s copyrights.

The Presley case was filed in California, but the case summary does not identify a court for the Eight Mile Style suit. It gives no filing dates, damages requests, specific prompts, sample tracks or rulings for either action. Those omissions leave the scale and commercial effect of the alleged infringement unquantified.

Case point: The Eminem case focuses on alleged copying of songs and lyrics, while the Presley case adds a voice-protection statute.

How do the lawyers frame the system?

Lawyers for both plaintiff groups argue that Suno has automated the use of artists’ identities, work and creativity into a production line aimed at profit. Their complaints cite examples of generated tracks that plaintiffs say sounded like Presley or carried lyrics replicating Eminem’s work.

That framing extends the disputes beyond the three named Eminem recordings. The Presley case concerns what a platform should do when a user names an artist. The Eminem case concerns new songs and lyrics that copy protected work. The case summaries provide no figures for the number of affected tracks, revenue or enforcement costs.

Evidence gap: Both complaints treat imitation as systematic, but no figures show how widespread it is.

What does Suno’s response leave unanswered?

Suno’s statement rejects the idea that its service profits from an artist’s name or image. It does not address the ELVIS Act, explain the cited examples, say whether users can still request Presley or Eminem imitations, or disclose any product or policy change.

That omission leaves the central commercial claim untested. Suno can state a different purpose without showing how its system responds to artist-specific instructions or rights-owner complaints.

Response gap: Suno has offered a purpose statement, not a case-specific answer to the copyright and voice-imitation allegations.

What happens next?

Round Hill Music, Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment have also filed actions against Suno, adding to the two cases involving Presley rights holders and Eight Mile Style. The case summary provides no hearing dates, outcomes or settlements for any of those actions.

No court order, settlement or product restriction appears in the available material. Whether Suno changes its service before any ruling remains unknown, leaving its current treatment of artist names, recognizable voices and protected lyrics exposed to judicial scrutiny.

Next test: Courts will determine whether artist-name prompts, vocal imitation and lyric replication amount to prohibited commercial copying or protected experimentation.