DistroKid told Billboard that it has removed "a very small number" of songs from its streaming platform after Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against the independent distributor in September, accusing it of flooding streaming services with "mass AI-generated, SEO-optimized, and copyright-infringing slop."
The move has raised fresh concerns for independent musicians, especially after some artists said on social media that the missing tracks were legitimate releases.
Here's what to know
The Verge first reported that DistroKid had removed the recordings because of UMG's lawsuit.
DistroKid's VP of artist services, Amanda Ferri, told Billboard that the platform removed the songs in response to UMG's allegations that it engaged in deceptive trade practices and copyright infringement.
UMG says the company diverted money from the royalty pool in two ways: by sending large amounts of AI-generated music to Spotify and other services, and by distributing songs that alter or borrow from existing tracks in ways UMG argues are plainly infringing.
DistroKid has not released specifics about why it took down certain songs, but some social media users complained that the deleted songs were neither AI-generated nor unlicensed, according to Billboard. They also said DistroKid's customer service response was lagging.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
Billboard reported in October 2024 that DistroKid had reduced its U.S. artist relations and quality control teams and shifted some of that work to the Philippines.
More background
Distributors such as DistroKid serve as gatekeepers to Spotify and similar services, meaning a track can disappear while companies sort through AI or copyright claims. When that happens, musicians can lose streams, royalties, and momentum before the underlying dispute is fully resolved. The clash is also part of the music business's broader fight over AI-generated songs.
As Billboard detailed, UMG and other major players in the music industry have been in court with Suno over claims that unlicensed music was used to train AI systems. The group also settled a 2024 lawsuit with Believe in April after it allegedly released tracks by artists with famous-sounding aliases, including "Kendrik Laamar," "Arriana Gramde," and "Jutin Biber."
What's being done?
DistroKid says it is trying to limit the fallout while challenging UMG's claims.
"We strongly dispute the allegations underlying UMG's lawsuit and regret the disruption to affected artists. We are working to minimize that disruption while protecting artists' ability to release their music," Ferri told Billboard.
Across the industry, the response is tightening on two fronts. Streaming platforms are using labels for AI-generated music, and major rights holders are increasingly going to court when they believe distributors or AI companies are profiting from unlicensed material.
Where can I learn more?
AI's emergence in the workplace has sparked a debate over who benefits and who gets paid. These articles cover artist revenue losses, the limits of copyright for AI-made works, platform backlash, and the broader legal battle over AI training.
• Across the music business, artists are losing revenue as AI slop spreads.
• Creative professionals face a closing window to secure paid AI training deals before leverage disappears.
• In the United States, courts have reaffirmed that copyrighted AI-generated material lacks human authorship.
• Spotify drew backlash in the U.S. after launching AI-generated personal podcasts for listeners.
• Across the tech sector, escalating AI copyright complaints are reshaping the industry's future.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
