Italy investigates AI music service Suno over unfair terms

The Italian competition and consumer authority, AGCM, has opened an investigation into the US company Suno. Suno runs an AI service where you can make songs by writing a short description.

The investigation is not about how the AI was trained. It is about Suno's terms, that is, the rules users must accept to use the service. According to the Italian media covering the case, the authority believes that some clauses put consumers at a significant disadvantage relative to the company.

What is the authority concerned about?

AGCM points to several things in the terms:

- Suno can change the agreement, the service and subscription prices unilaterally without giving a justified reason. - The company can close or disable an account, so the user's content disappears, without notice. - According to the authority, the license terms on rights to the music are too unclear. - Users must waive what are called moral rights, such as the right to be named as creator. AGCM believes this is not consistent with Italian copyright law. - The disclaimers of liability are very broad and general, including in relation to personal injury. - Disputes must be resolved through arbitration in the US under Massachusetts jurisdiction, and class actions are excluded.

What happens now?

AGCM is holding a public consultation on the disputed terms. National trade associations, chambers of commerce and recognized consumer organizations have been invited to participate.

This is the opening of an investigation, not a ruling. In other words, no decision has been made that Suno has broken the rules.

What does it mean for you?

If you use AI tools to make music, it is worth reading through the terms. They determine who owns the songs, what the company may do with them and what happens if the account is closed.

The case comes on top of other legal challenges for Suno in Europe. According to the media, a German legal dispute with the music rights organization GEMA ended with a court finding that Suno had infringed copyright.