Jamendo Sues Nvidia Over Alleged AI Training on Songs

Jamendo has filed a U.S. copyright lawsuit accusing Nvidia of using its music to train AI audio models, putting a California federal court dispute around Fugatto and Audio Flamingo in front of readers who want to know what is claimed, what is being sought, and what has not been decided. The allegation is still an allegation: no U.S. court ruling cited in the current coverage establishes that Nvidia infringed Jamendo copyrights or that any damages are owed.

Key points

Jamendo sued Nvidia in the United States over alleged AI training on music, with Reuters reporting on the lawsuit on June 23, 2026.
Billboard reported that Jamendo’s lawsuit names Nvidia’s AI music models Fugatto and Audio Flamingo.
Music Business Worldwide reported that Jamendo is seeking an injunction, actual damages, and Nvidia profits of no less than EUR 17.8 million, about USD 20.3 million.

What changed

Jamendo has taken its dispute with Nvidia to the United States. Music Business Worldwide reported that Jamendo filed the lawsuit in the U.S., and Digital Music News reported that the complaint was submitted to a California federal court.

The case matters because it asks a court to examine a concrete AI-training claim: Jamendo says Nvidia used Jamendo music without permission to train audio models. For Nvidia, Jamendo, and anyone following copyright fights around generative AI, the practical point is narrower than the headline fight may suggest. This is not a court finding. It is a complaint seeking remedies.

Reuters reported on the lawsuit on June 23, 2026. Billboard, Music Business Worldwide, and Digital Music News also covered the case that day, with each identifying the dispute as litigation over alleged AI music training. The immediate reader takeaway is that the U.S. case has begun, the named models are public, and the requested remedies are known, while liability, damages, and next court steps remain unresolved.

The models named

Billboard reported that Jamendo’s lawsuit claims Nvidia illegally trained the AI music models Fugatto and Audio Flamingo on Jamendo songs. Those two names are the specific Nvidia AI audio systems identified in the complaint coverage.

That wording matters. The article should not be read as saying Fugatto or Audio Flamingo were definitively trained on Jamendo songs. It is Jamendo’s lawsuit that makes the claim, and the court process still has to address whether the alleged use occurred, whether it was unlawful, and whether any remedy should follow.

The current public picture also leaves out a basic factual detail: the exact number of Jamendo tracks allegedly used in training has not been established in the reporting. Until filings or court action clarify that point, the dispute is best understood as a copyright complaint centered on alleged training material, named AI audio models, and requested legal remedies.

Who Jamendo is

Jamendo is described in the coverage as a music-rights business rather than simply as an individual artist plaintiff. Music Business Worldwide called Jamendo a music licensing platform owned by the Belgium-headquartered Winamp Group. Digital Music News described Jamendo as Luxembourg-based.

Those descriptions give the case its corporate frame without adding unsupported claims about Jamendo’s catalog, artists, users, or market impact. The available facts support saying Jamendo is a licensing platform connected to Winamp Group and described as Luxembourg-based. They do not support broader conclusions about how the lawsuit affects musicians, fans, streaming services, or other platforms.

That distinction helps keep the case in focus. The legal question presented in the current coverage is not whether the music industry as a whole has changed, or whether AI music tools should be regulated in a particular way. It is whether Jamendo can prove the copyright claims it has brought against Nvidia and whether a court will grant any of the remedies it requests.

What Jamendo wants

Music Business Worldwide reported that Jamendo is seeking an injunction, actual damages, and Nvidia profits of no less than EUR 17.8 million, about USD 20.3 million. That figure is a litigation demand, not an award.

The injunction request and the money request point to different possible outcomes. An injunction would be a court order tied to the conduct Jamendo challenges. The damages and profits request asks for financial recovery tied to alleged harm and alleged Nvidia benefit. None of those outcomes has been granted in the current record described by the reports.

The practical follow-up is straightforward. Readers should watch for whether Nvidia files a response in California, whether the court addresses any injunction request, and whether later filings clarify the alleged training material. The EUR 17.8 million figure, about USD 20.3 million, should stay attached to Jamendo’s request unless a court later awards money.

The Belgium thread

The U.S. complaint is not Jamendo’s first legal move against Nvidia. Digital Music News reported that Jamendo had taken legal action against Nvidia in Belgium roughly eight months before the U.S. complaint. The same report said the older case is unfolding in Ghent.

The Belgium case has one reported procedural marker. Digital Music News reported that a Ghent judge earlier in June rejected Nvidia Belgium’s jurisdictional objection. That ruling concerns the Belgium proceeding’s ability to move past a jurisdiction challenge; it does not decide the California copyright claims.

The current status of the Belgium case beyond that Ghent jurisdiction ruling remains unconfirmed in the details provided by the reports. The careful way to connect the two matters is to say that the California complaint now sits alongside an earlier Ghent proceeding, not that either case has resolved the underlying infringement dispute.

What remains open

The main unresolved issue is the central one: whether Nvidia used Jamendo songs in training without permission in a way that violates copyright. Jamendo says it did. The current coverage does not show that a U.S. court has accepted that claim, found Nvidia liable, or ordered Nvidia to pay damages.

Several practical details are also still open. It remains unclear whether Nvidia has publicly responded to the U.S. lawsuit, what the full procedural status of the California case is, and what the next scheduled steps are. The exact number of Jamendo tracks allegedly used in training also has not been established in the reports.

For the Belgium action, the confirmed detail is narrower: Digital Music News reported earlier legal action in Belgium, a Ghent proceeding, and a June jurisdiction ruling rejecting Nvidia Belgium’s objection. Anything beyond that, including the current posture after the jurisdiction ruling, should wait for additional filings or reporting.

For now, Jamendo’s lawsuit is a live copyright dispute over alleged AI training, not a resolved judgment about Nvidia’s conduct. The case’s next meaningful developments would be a Nvidia response, a U.S. court decision on any injunction request, added detail on the music allegedly used, or a clearer procedural update from the Ghent proceeding.