As the music industry grapples with a surge in AI songs, the world's biggest music company says a massive distributor is a big part of the problem.
Trending on Billboard
Universal Music Group is suing DistroKid over accusations that the music distributor is flooding streaming platforms like Spotify with “AI-generated slop” and “polluting the listening experience.”
In a scathing lawsuit filed Tuesday (Sept. 15) in Manhattan federal court, UMG alleges that Distrokid — a huge distributor valued at more than [$2 billion](https://www.billboard.com/pro/distrokid-acquired-cvc-capital-partners/) that helps independent artists get onto streaming platforms — has fueled its growth with “illegal, deceptive and unlawful practices.”
Most notably, the music giant says DistroKid is helping to saturate the market with “mass AI-generated, SEO-optimized, and copyright-infringing slop” that is deceptively passed off as human-created music.
“Plaintiffs bring this action to stop DistroKid’s market-disorienting practices that mislead for its own gain at plaintiffs’ expense, and to remedy DistroKid’s massive infringement and continued efforts to build its business on the backs of Plaintiffs and their recording artists,” UMG’s lawyers write in court documents obtained by *Billboard*.
While DistroKid promotes itself as “a leading music distributor for artist-backed releases,” UMG says that it is really something else: a major conduit for AI-powered junk that’s harming real artists and burdening music fans. “DistroKid is flooding platforms with AI-generated ‘slop’ that siphons revenue and listeners from the legitimate artists and rightsholders,” UMG’s lawyers write. “The consequences of this deception fall on the legitimate players in the music economy, including artists, consumers, digital services, and plaintiffs.”
A spokesman for DistroKid declined to comment on Tuesday.
The new case comes as music companies and digital platforms grapple with a wave of AI-generated music. Given that streaming royalties are divvied up from a finite pie of revenue, a huge influx of AI songs means that real human creators and their labels/publishers see proportionally less money. Fans are also increasingly voicing frustration with wading through such music amid a broader backlash against AI.
Spotify [said last month](https://www.billboard.com/pro/spotify-label-identify-ai-artists/) it would add labels to AI-generated artists, while Apple [went a step further](https://www.billboard.com/pro/apple-music-to-label-ai-generated-music/) and said it would begin labeling any songs that were “materially generated using AI.” RIAA and other industry players are [planning a new system](https://www.billboard.com/pro/riaa-ifpi-more-create-system-for-tagging-ai-songs/) for tagging AI-generated songs on streaming services, and a wide range of major labels and distributors signed onto a new [“Streaming Integrity Initiative”](https://www.billboard.com/pro/ifpi-initiative-fight-streaming-fraud/) this week aimed at tamping down AI-fueled streaming fraud.
UMG’s lawsuit on Tuesday claims that DistroKid is a key cog in that broader problem. It points to specific examples of the company’s alleged misconduct, including distributing one artist called “Lofi Chill” that released 4,562 tracks over a single twelve-month period.
“That is the equivalent of 20-30 full-length albums every month, a pace no human musician could achieve,” UMG writes. “These ‘artists’ are not artists at all. Their very names are designed only to surface in search results… in violation of those services’ policies and guidelines, and displacing other legitimate tracks.”
The lawsuit also says DistroKid empowers plain-old copyright infringement beyond AI, allowing for the upload of music that is clearly illegal. That includes existing UMG tracks that are sped up or remixed, the suit claims, as well as songs with new vocals over existing recordings.
In technical legal terms, the lawsuit accuses DistroKid not just of violating federal copyright laws, but also of breaching Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. UMG says the company misled the public by advertising itself as a source of legitimate human music when it is anything but.
“These consumers reasonably expect that the recordings… are legitimate artist-backed releases, rather than bot-generated AI slop,” UMG’s lawyers write. “But DistroKid has flooded the market with sound recordings that do not meet these standards — misleading Delaware consumers into believing they are engaging with real artists when they, in fact, are being duped by AI bot farms.”
UMG, which has taken a strong stance against unauthorized AI in the music industry but has embraced what it calls an “ethical” approach to the new technology, is careful in its lawsuit to note that the lawsuit was not aimed at artificial intelligence writ large.
“This lawsuit is not about the distribution of AI-generated music when clearly disclosed as such,” the company writes. “This lawsuit is about DistroKid masquerading as something it is not and benefiting from that false impression.”