Judge Saylor granted Suno’s request to file a 15 page reply to Anthony Justice’s opposition to their motion to dismiss. The reply is due Nov. 21, 2025.
Suno argued that Justice raised several new arguments in their opposition: “On November 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Suno’s motion. See Dkt. No. 33. The opposition brief introduces several arguments that mischaracterize or misapprehend Suno’s opening brief and the law or deviate from the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. It also attempts to recharacterize Count Four, which alleges a violation of the TCPA, as a claim under Tennessee common law on unfair competition.”
- For example, addressing their copyright infringement claim (Count Two), Plaintiffs
argue that their allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss because
they alleged “approximately 100 examples of infringing Suno outputs.” See Dkt.
No. 33 at 6. They also argue that Suno “does [not] respond to” these outputs. Id.
But Plaintiffs do not allege that any of the outputs even remotely resembles their
asserted works, which is the point of Suno’s motion. Suno’s reply brief would
address this issue . . Plaintiffs also argue for the first time that Suno “alone has
access” to the information needed to plausibly state their claims. Id. at 16. This
argument is entirely new and is contradicted by the Amended Complaint, which a
reply brief would allow Suno to address. - With respect to their section 1201 claim (Count Three), Plaintiffs argue for the first
time that YouTube’s “rolling cipher” is an access control—despite repeated
allegations in the Amended Complaint describing it as a tool that prevents
“copying” and “downloading.” See id. at 17–20; see also Dkt. No. 27 ⁋⁋ 12, 362,
373, 379. Plaintiffs also claim that they alleged circumvention of other
technological protection measures and that Suno did not address those measures.
See id. at 20. Plaintiffs’ new arguments contradict their own allegations, and Suno
was accordingly unable to address them in its opening brief. - Finally, Plaintiffs’ opposition brief attempts to recast what they repeatedly
identified in their Amended Complaint as a claim asserting a violation of the TCPA as an entirely different cause of action, claiming that their repeated citation to the TCPA was “inadvertent”. See id. at 24–26. This argument is one that Suno could not have anticipated and addressed in its opening brief, and Suno should be permitted to address the pleading sufficiency of the claim Plaintiffs’ apparently intended to assert. - Counsel for Suno informed Plaintiffs of its intention to seek leave to file a reply
brief on November 11, 2025. Plaintiffs agreed to provide their consent to Suno’s
motion, on the condition that Suno not object that Plaintiffs’ opposition brief, which
is twenty-one pages long, exceeds the twenty-page limit for opposition briefs set
forth in the District of Massachusetts Local Rules. Suno agreed to Plaintiffs’
proposal.