Musicians have been left out of settlements between major record labels and AI companies, a new lawsuit alleges.

The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), which has 70,000 members, said Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group “received significant compensation” from the AI companies for past copyright violations and licensed “substantial” portions of their music catalogs to them, but haven’t shared that with the musicians.

UMG and WMG sued AI companies Udio and Suno in 2024, accusing them of copyright infringement. Both companies settled with Udio last year. In November, WMG announced a partnership with Suno, but Universal Music Group’s lawsuit against Suno is pending.

“While the Defendants protected their own interests and created a significant source of new revenue with the retrospective settlements and prospective licenses, they have refused to compensate the musicians whose work — created with their own instruments and through their talent, creativity, and hard work — is fed into AI machines for profit,” AFM said in its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Friday.

AFM said it believes the AI settlements fall under the “new use” provision of its collective bargaining agreements, which requires music companies to notify the union of new licenses for purposes not covered by the contract and to compensate musicians, whose work was used to train AI models.

UMG and WMG said in statements that they are in negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement with AFM.

“Warner Music Group is growing the value of music by establishing guardrails and architecting a healthy AI ecosystem on behalf of artists everywhere,” the company said in a statement.

Universal Music Group said it will continue to work to resolve issues during the negotiations.

“Universal Music Group has been at the forefront of protecting the rights and advancing the interests of artists and songwriters in the age of AI — striking responsible AI licensing agreements to ensure they are compensated, leading the charge for legislation to further protect them and taking legal action against bad actors,” the company said in a statement.
“We expect to continue our strong working relationship with the AFM built on mutual respect for the talented musicians in our industry.”

AI has become more popular among consumers, dramatically changing the landscape in the entertainment industry. Many startups have popped up allowing users to type text prompts into AI systems to generate original songs, video clips and stories.

Some creatives say the AI tools help them brainstorm or illustrate bold ideas on a budget. But critics have raised concerns about whether AI systems are trained on copyrighted works without permission or payment to artists. Others are worried AI could eliminate their livelihoods.

Udio said it would create a new platform that would train on licensed and authorized music with artists having the ability to opt-in. Suno agreed to change its platform, launching new licensed models, and place download restrictions.

Bradford Auerbach, a partner at law firm OGC, said he expects to see more of these types of lawsuits filed by unions.

“You’ve got the unions always protecting the status quo, so you’ve got this invariable conflict of new technology coming in, and moving the cheese for a lot of people that were accustomed to having their business set up the way it was,” Auerbach said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday directing the federal government to establish a voluntary early review process for the country’s most advanced artificial intelligence models, following a months-long internal battle over how aggressively Washington should move to regulate the fast-growing technology.

Under the order, companies are asked to allow government agencies, including the National Security Agency and representatives of the Defense Department, to evaluate cutting-edge models up to 30 days before they are released to the public. The order stops short of mandating participation and explicitly bars the creation of any new licensing or permitting for AI models.

“The main question is whether this is the start of a continued government clamp down and response to continued AI capabilities, or whether this is a one-off, limited, and truly voluntary act,” said James Sanders, research associate at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

“It’s unclear how voluntary this will stay and how voluntary it will be in practice as the AI labs try to maintain good relationships with the U.S. government,” he said.

The order represents a reversal for Trump, less than two weeks after he scuttled a version of the policy that gave the government a 90-day review period — and, more broadly, for an administration that came to power promising to strip away AI guardrails, a posture that slowly created fractures within the GOP.

In the executive order, Trump appeared to frame a need to foster AI technologies while taking into account national security. “As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country,” he said in the order.

The step set off immediate debate about whether Trump’s plan would be an effective approach. It formalizes an existing practice in which top AI companies share models with external evaluators and government players before deploying them publicly, but raises questions about how voluntary it will be and how the government will choose which labs to target.

David Sacks, who previously served as Trump’s AI advisor, called the 30-day window a “game changer,” arguing that the shorter timeline would allow companies to engage with the government without slowing down new model releases.

“In the AI race, every day counts,” Sacks wrote in a post on X.

Dean W. Ball, Trump’s former AI advisor, characterized the order as a victory for the AI “safety contingent” and a loss for Sacks and others who promote a more accelerated approach. He called the order a mistake, saying it could be a first step toward a federal licensing requirement for AI models.

“All for a benefit that is barely articulable; what, exactly, is the intelligence community going to do in 30 days to make the models safer?” Ball wrote on X.

The signing of the executive order occurred amid growing tensions among Republicans over AI, job loss and data center construction, including fear among a significant portion of Trump’s supporters that artificial intelligence could eliminate jobs or become a security threat. Polling in May had shown strong support among Republicans for a framework like the one outlined in Trump’s executive order.

The growing split among Republicans over AI was clearly visible in Florida on Monday, where James Uthmeier, the state’s Republican attorney general, sued OpenAI over the alleged risks of ChatGPT, citing the use of the bot by a gunman in a shooting at Florida State University last year.

Meanwhile, Rep. Byron Donalds — the Trump-endorsed candidate to succeed Gov. Ron DeSantis — said Monday that he did not agree with Trump on AI policy, indicating he supported state-led regulation, a shift for a candidate who had been backed by the AI industry earlier in the year.

A poll released by Americans for Responsible Innovation, a nonprofit advocating for a federal framework for AI policy, found that the majority of Republican voters polled supported the type of plan laid out in Trump’s executive order. Seventy-one percent also said independent security testing should be required by law for advanced AI systems.

When Trump took office, his administration pivoted away from Biden-era policies requiring AI companies to test their AI models and share safety results with the government before public release, reversing the U.S. posture on regulation.

That changed after Anthropic — acting on its own initiative — brought its Claude Mythos Preview model to senior White House officials, a move that exposed vulnerabilities in its software and raised concerns about the potential need for safety-testing of AI models before broad public release.

The White House attempted to downplay the executive order as a regulatory move, emphasizing in a post Tuesday that the federal government would not conduct sweeping oversight and the process outlined in the executive order would be voluntary.

“We are NOT conducting oversight of all new models, as that level of government overreach would have chilling effects on free speech and innovation,” the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy posted on X.

Trump’s signing of the order prompted calls from those who support stricter AI regulation for Congress to take steps beyond Trump’s plan. Thus far, Congress has not passed any major legislation to regulate artificial intelligence.

“Congress should take the structure this order creates, make participation mandatory, and extend it beyond cyber threats to the full range of risks the most capable models present,” Riki Parikh, policy director of the Alliance for Secure AI, a nonprofit that promotes safeguards for AI, said on X, saying the order’s voluntary framework “isn’t enough.”

Progressives, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, said the executive order was too weak and slammed Trump for flip-flopping on regulation.

Some experts suggested the distinction between voluntary and mandatory sharing of their cutting-edge technology may be crucial.

“No company is formally required to participate, but if a developer wants to sell frontier AI systems to the federal government, participation may soon become the price of entry,” Jessica Tillipman, a professor who studies contracting law at George Washington University, wrote in a post on X.

The administration’s approach was welcomed by industry leaders, including Microsoft President Brad Smith, who said the order was “an important step toward advancing innovation while protecting the security of the American public.”

Anthropic endorsed the order and called it “an important step in strengthening America’s leadership in AI.” The company said it was looking forward to supporting the implementation of the program.

Ceballos and McDaniel reported from Washington, Christopher from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Michael Wilner contributed to this report.

An arbitrator has sided with former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, saying in a preliminary ruling that he was not guilty of sexual assault against his former girlfriend and business partner Michelle Ritter.

The arbitrator, retired Washington State Judge Beth Andrus, recently ordered Ritter to pay $10.7 million in damages to Schmidt.

Ritter sued Schmidt in Los Angeles County Superior Court last September, accusing the billionaire tech mogul of “forcibly” raping her on a yacht off the coast of Mexico in 2021. She also alleged Schmidt forced her to have nonconsensual sex at the Burning Man festival in 2023.

“I clearly told him ‘no’ and tried to get him to stop, but I had learned that attempting to resist physically would be futile and make things worse,” Ritter said in a legal filing.

Schmidt has denied the accusations under oath. The arbitrator said that Ritter did “everything she could possibly do” to avoid discussing the rape accusations under oath.

Ritter had a romantic relationship with the 71-year-old Schmidt after they met in 2020 while she was pursuing graduate degrees in law and business at Columbia University. He invested about $100 million in a joint venture with her that later fell apart.

The pair’s dispute stretches back to 2024 after their personal relationship unraveled and as they were negotiating a settlement of their Steel Perlot venture, a business accelerator that invested in artificial intelligence, crypto and other startups.

Ritter also accused Schmidt of stealing the joint venture from her, which he denied.

“One can also conclude that Ritter engaged in self-centered efforts to obtain revenge against Schmidt in a way that was more damaging than helpful to her cause,” Andrus wrote in her decision, which was recently made public. “I find that Ritter’s statement that she was raped by Schmidt to be false.”

Ritter, 32, alleged that a 2022 federal law inspired by the #MeToo movement intended to end forced arbitration of sexual assault and harassment claims allowed her to have her case heard in open court.

Superior Court Judge Michael Small disagreed, ruling that the law did not apply because a financial settlement and arbitration agreement Ritter and Schmidt signed in December 2024 was entered into after the alleged sexual wrongdoing — not before as legally required.

The judge sent the case to arbitration in March. Ritter filed a federal lawsuit in California in April challenging the arbitration. That litigation is pending.

Schmidt served as Google chief executive from 2001 to 2011 and later as the chairman of the Silicon Valley company and its parent, Alphabet Inc., until 2017.

Schmidt is worth about $52 billion, largely through his stock holding in Google’s parent company, Alphabet, according to Bloomberg.

Last year, Schmidt took a controlling interest in Relativity Space, a Long Beach rocket startup founded in 2015.