Universal Music Sues DistroKid, Alleging It Built an “AI-Slop Pipeline” and Infringed Copyrights

Universal Music Group (UMG) sued online music distributor DistroKid on September 15, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing it of “deceptive business practices” and “blatant copyright infringement.”

In a 52-page complaint, UMG alleged that DistroKid built an “AI-slop pipeline,” allowing a flood of AI-generated music and allegedly infringing tracks to flow onto streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music. The complaint states that the lawsuit “does not target the distribution of music explicitly labeled as AI-generated,” but rather targets DistroKid “masquerading as something it is not and profiting from that false impression.”

UMG alleged that DistroKid conveyed three false impressions to the market: first, that the music it distributes is created and owned by real human artists; second, that DistroKid complies with the policies of digital service platforms and the Music Fights Fraud Alliance’s initiative to curb mass uploads of AI slop; and third, that DistroKid opposes copyright infringement. According to the complaint, “In reality, DistroKid has embraced all of these bad practices because doing so benefits its growth and corresponding market valuation.”

The complaint cited an account named “Lofi Chill” as an example, which released 4,562 tracks in 12 months. UMG noted that this is equivalent to releasing 20 to 30 full-length albums per month, “a pace impossible for human musicians to achieve.” The complaint also accused DistroKid of distributing unauthorized remixes and sped-up versions of popular recordings, including the “radio edit” of “Unholy” by Sam Smith and Kim Petras. UMG said that after streaming platforms notified DistroKid of the allegedly infringing content, DistroKid continued to distribute the recording to additional streaming services even after acknowledging that it did not own the rights to the track, conduct UMG described as “egregious.”

UMG asked the court to award statutory damages and issue an injunction barring DistroKid from continuing the alleged infringement. It also sought an order prohibiting DistroKid from creating the false impression that “most of the recordings it distributes are artist-supported releases.” The complaint identifies 1,000 specific recordings. At the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, the theoretical maximum recovery would be $150 million, but the complaint says these 1,000 tracks are only the “tip of the iceberg.”

DistroKid told the Los Angeles Times that it “takes copyright protection, fraud prevention, and the integrity of the music ecosystem seriously.” As of press time, DistroKid had not commented further on the lawsuit.