Loading page…
The complaint targets tools that allegedly let users imitate Presley, not just copyrighted songs used for training. Suno says it blocks unauthorized artist prompts.
Listen to this story
The complaint puts Tennessee’s 2024 ELVIS Act at the center of a dispute over whether an AI music company can be held responsible for tools allegedly enabling unauthorized voice cloning. Elvis Presley Enterprises also alleges Suno trained on protected Presley recordings; Suno says it bars prompts naming specific artists or songs and screens uploads. The case could test how the statute applies to AI providers, separately from copyright claims over training material, while the parties dispute whether Suno’s safeguards prevent artist imitation.
The copyright allegations name six songs, including “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “All Shook Up” and “Return to Sender.”
The Presley owners cite linked videos and allege Suno generated a clone from lyrics containing Presley’s name as recently as October.
Attorney Richard Busch alleges hundreds to thousands of additional examples; that figure is the plaintiffs’ claim, not an independently verified count.
Suno faces a legal challenge over what its music generator allegedly lets users reproduce: Elvis Presley’s voice, not just his songs. Elvis Presley Enterprises sued the company on November 6, 2026, alleging unauthorized voice cloning and copyright infringement. The complaint invokes Tennessee’s ELVIS Act to pursue the company providing the tools.
The plaintiff is a unit of licensing company Authentic Brands Group, which controls Presley-related intellectual property, including much of his song catalog and rights to his name, image and likeness. Billboard reported that the lawsuit combines allegations about music used to train Suno with a separate challenge to synthetic vocals that allegedly imitate the singer’s recognizable voice.
Tennessee enacted the ELVIS Act in 2024 to strengthen protections against unauthorized uses of a person’s likeness. Its full name is the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act. Crucially for this case, the law allows claims against companies that provide tools enabling unauthorized voice or image cloning, rather than limiting responsibility to the person making the imitation.
Earlier likeness laws typically focused on commercial exploitation, such as using someone’s identity in an unauthorized advertisement. The Tennessee statute removed those restrictions. That gives the Presley owners a legal route directed at the alleged reproduction of his identity, alongside their claims about ownership of the underlying music.
The copyright portion alleges Suno trained its models on protected Presley songs without authorization. Named works include “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “Don’t Be Cruel,” “A Little Less Conversation,” “All Shook Up,” “Return to Sender” and “(You’re the) Devil in Disguise.” Those allegations concern the material allegedly used to develop the system; the voice claims concern what users can generate with it.
The complaint includes links to videos that the Presley owners say capture Suno playing songs with synthetic vocals resembling him. Their lawyer, Richard Busch of Adams & Reese, describes those examples as unlicensed uses of Presley’s voice and likeness. He alleges there are hundreds to thousands more examples. That is the plaintiffs’ characterization of the evidence, not an independently verified count.
The owners also allege that, as recently as October, Suno generated an Elvis clone from lyrics containing his name. Their account directly challenges Suno’s position in other likeness lawsuits: that its models do not accept specific artists’ names as prompts or produce outputs mimicking particular real voices.
In the earlier case brought by Jason Isbell and other musicians, Suno’s lawyers argued that artist names function as shorthand for musical genres, not as a means of directly taking their voices. The Presley complaint disputes that distinction by alleging reproduction of the singer’s signature vocal qualities.
Suno exists to help people create new, original music, not to trade on anyone’s name or likeness.
Suno spokesperson, in a statement reported by VICE
In a response reported by VICE, a Suno spokesperson said the company prohibits unauthorized use of artists’ work and does not allow prompts for specific artists’ names or songs. The company also said it uses third-party providers to screen uploaded audio files and lyrics for potential misuse.
Suno said it would keep strengthening those safeguards to protect artists and users. The Presley owners frame the stakes differently: their attorneys argue that unlicensed replication threatens the incentive to develop human musical skill. Authentic Brands Group spokeswoman Lark-Marie Antón told Billboard that Presley’s name, image, likeness and music are highly valuable assets, and that the company protects those rights vigorously.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain where you would draw the line between toolmaker and user responsibility.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.