WPLN12%

Thousands of independent musicians join lawsuits against AI companies 18%

By Jewly Hight0%

7/24/2026, 2:50:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Recency Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 480 faulty-reasoning hits from 510 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.3% and a BS Rank of 18% (17,993 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.20% of the article peer group.

The role of AI in music creation is the subject of widening class action lawsuits. 
One thing that generative AI is generating, in seemingly limitless quantities, is legal news. 
That’s true even when the topic is narrowed to AI and music. 
Deepfakes of familiar artists have grabbed attention. 
So has the AI slop flooding streaming platforms. 
Plus the big moves that major record labels and AI companies are making whose aftershocks reverberate across the music industry, from startup launches to litigation and licensing agreements. 
A comparatively underexamined topic is what independent musicians can do about it. 
A lot of music-makers lack the resources of the power players of the music and tech businesses, and they aren’t sure how to address their own concerns about AI. 
That includes the prospect of their music being used to train AI models without permission. 
More than one piece of federal legislation in the works may eventually provide protections, including the COPIED Act , the TRAIN Act and the CLEAR Act , and those who want to see them become law can voice support. 
There are also two class action lawsuits proceeding on behalf of independent musicians. 
Those are against each of the leading AI music companies: Suno and Udio. 
Rather than placing TV ads to get the word out when her firm filed the lawsuits last summer, the lead attorney at Delgado Entertainment Law, Krystle Delgado, used her YouTube channel, vigorously . 
“Suno and Udio committed copyright infringement, and now they owe you money,” she emphasized in her clip. 
“But independent artists whose rights were trampled the most have been left without a seat at the table. 
That changes today.” 
In the video, the sound effect of a judge banging a gavel punctuates the promise. 
In June, when The Atlantic published its investigation into vast collections of music AI companies might have accessed for training purposes, the number of artists participating in the lawsuits doubled in 72 hours. 
Plaintiffs now number in the thousands, and it’s still possible to sign up at indieailawsuit.com . 
Hagens Berman, a larger firm known for class action cases, has also joined the legal team . 
Why new revelations about the training of AI music models hit close to home 
Major labels Sony, Warner and Universal have pursued their own lawsuits against Suno and Udio, without getting the AI companies to disclose their training data. 
But that’s exactly what the class action attorneys are working towards. 
Being able to search that data and find their plaintiff’s work included in it is essential to proving the artists deserve compensation. 
“So now here’s the ‘stop everything and pay attention’ really good news,” Delgado underscored in another video on her channel. 
“If you get on the plaintiff list for our lawsuits, I will be searching Suno and Udio’s databases for your songs.” 
First the federal courts will have to compel the companies to release that information. 
That could happen in the coming months, since the Udio suit is moving towards the discovery phase. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Jewly Hight: 2.4%WPLN: 3.8%Availability Heuristic5.7%This article: 5.7%Jewly Hight: 1.9%WPLN: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Jewly Hight: 3.9%WPLN: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 4.4%WPLN: 4.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Jewly Hight: 1.2%WPLN: 0.4%Loss Aversion3.5%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.6%Jewly Hight: 7.6%WPLN: 2.8%Optimism Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Jewly Hight: 2.4%WPLN: 7.4%Negativity Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Jewly Hight: 4.3%WPLN: 1.6%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 1.1%WPLN: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.7%Jewly Hight: 0.9%WPLN: 3.9%Hasty Generalization2.7%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.6%Jewly Hight: 6.7%WPLN: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 3.3%Jewly Hight: 2.2%WPLN: 0.6%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 6.5%Jewly Hight: 2.2%WPLN: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.3%Jewly Hight: 1.4%WPLN: 0.8%Burden of Proof4.3%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.7%Jewly Hight: 1.9%WPLN: 0.2%Composition/Division5.7%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.3%Jewly Hight: 1.1%WPLN: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.5%WPLN: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 4.1%Jewly Hight: 1.4%WPLN: 0.9%Indoctrination4.1%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jewly Hight: 0.0%WPLN: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Jewly Hight: 3.5%WPLN: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.3%

510 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech398writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKrystle Delgado • 33 words • 0.0% coverageKrystle Delgado • 17 words • 100.0% coverageKrystle Delgado • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKrystle Delgado • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKrystle Delgado • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKrystle Delgado • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Krystle Delgado

71%flagged-word coverage
112 attributed words100% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination+18.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Krystle Delgado: 18.8%18.8%Attempt to Sell a Product +14.7 ptsWriter: 4.0%Krystle Delgado: 18.8%18.8%Quote-first Misdirection+15.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Krystle Delgado: 15.2%15.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.