SAMPLEDWhat Does the Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Ruling Mean for AI Music?
A U.S. appeals court rejected a fair-use defense for AI training on Sept. 29, 2026. No music company was in the case, but the RIAA and NMPA backed it for a reason. Here is what it decides and what it does not.
On Sept. 29, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled for Thomson Reuters against AI legal-research company ROSS Intelligence, rejecting ROSS's argument that training an AI model on copyrighted material was fair use. Music Business Worldwide (opens in a new tab) broke down what it means for music.
What was the case about?
ROSS used Westlaw headnotes, short summaries of court rulings written by Thomson Reuters editors, to train a competing legal search engine. ROSS shut down in 2021, citing the cost of the litigation.
Why does a legal-research case matter for music?
It is the first federal appeals decision on whether training a commercial AI model on copyrighted works is fair use. The RIAA and NMPA filed a joint brief supporting Thomson Reuters and named the Suno, Udio and Anthropic cases in a footnote.
What did the court decide?
Three points stand out for music:
- "Intermediate copying" did not save ROSS. ROSS argued that copying during training was just a step toward a non-infringing product. Suno makes a similar argument. The court said earlier cases allowing this depended on necessity, and "unlike necessity, ease is not a justification for copying."
- Same purpose means little transformation. ROSS used the headnotes for the same end as Thomson Reuters, making its use "minimally transformative, at best."
- A licensing market for training data counts, even if the rights holder had not licensed into it yet.
Photo: Mitchschneider88 via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
What does the ruling not decide?
- It is binding only in the Third Circuit. The Suno cases are in Massachusetts, in the First Circuit.
- ROSS had about ten million free, uncopyrighted court opinions it could have used instead. There is no comparable free archive of uncopyrighted sound recordings, so Suno can argue a necessity ROSS could not, as MBW notes.
- It was not a generative AI case producing new creative works.
What should musicians take from it?
The legal tide in the first appeals ruling went against "train first, ask later." That strengthens the case for licensing deals between AI companies and rights holders. Register your works with your PRO and the Copyright Office so you can be identified and paid if licensing becomes the norm. Start with What Is a Performing Rights Organization?
For the music lawsuits this ruling feeds into, see Why Did Universal and Sony Sue Suno Again Over Its v6 Models?
FAQ
Is AI training illegal now? No. One appeals court rejected one fair-use defense on specific facts.
Does this apply to Suno and Udio? Not directly, but their courts may find it persuasive.
Can it be appealed? ROSS could seek further review, including at the Supreme Court.