AGCM has opened an inquiry into Suno under Article 33, a provision addressing potentially unfair consumer contract terms in Italy. The authority is examining several provisions in the company’s service conditions. The source reports concerns but does not describe a final legal finding.
What does Article 33 cover?
Article 33 is part of the Italy Consumer Code, and the source describes it as a test of whether contract terms tilt the balance of rights too heavily towards a company and away from its customers. AGCM is using that framework to examine Suno’s terms. The inquiry therefore concerns the fairness of contract conditions for consumers. The available account does not say that the authority has concluded that any provision is unlawful.
How could Suno change its service?
The concerns reported by the source include terms that may let Suno change the contract, the service and subscription prices without giving a reason. AGCM is examining whether those provisions are unfair under Article 33. The source does not specify how often changes have occurred, or how much any subscription price might change. It also does not explain whether customers receive other notice or options when terms change.
What account actions are under review?
AGCM has questioned provisions that appear to let Suno suspend or close accounts without notice and at any time. The same action could affect songs saved in those accounts, according to the source. The inquiry is about what the written terms permit, and the account does not report any particular closure or loss of songs. It also does not state how users can recover access after an account is suspended.
What rights do users grant over content?
Users must grant Suno a licence to use their content in order to use the platform, and AGCM says that licence is too broad, according to the source. The terms also reportedly require users to waive moral rights, which relate to crediting authors and treatment of their work. The source says Italian copyright law protects moral rights. It does not provide the complete licence wording or explain which specific uses of content are permitted.
How would consumers raise disputes?
The terms reportedly direct consumer claims to binding individual arbitration in the United States, with strict time limits and no class action provision. They also state that courts in Massachusetts have exclusive jurisdiction. Separately, the source says users are apparently asked to accept further terms at sign-up that they cannot see then, and AGCM has raised general liability limits. It remains unclear from the account how Suno will respond, what precise wording is disputed, or when the consultation will begin; the next stated step is a public consultation through AGCM’s website, open to national trade associations, chambers of commerce and recognised consumer groups.
The inquiry follows earlier AGCM consumer investigations into DeepSeek, Mistral and Nova AI. According to the source, those investigations ended after the companies agreed to alert users to hallucinations, or false information generated by chatbots. That history provides context for AGCM’s work on AI services, but it does not determine the outcome of the Suno case. The authority’s assessment of Suno’s terms remains pending.