DistroKid has confirmed that it has removed a collection of recordings from streaming services in response to claims made by Universal Music Group.
That’s according to The Verge, which reported on October 10 that independent artists had been posting on social media about their music being taken down without notice.
The takedowns follow UMG’s lawsuit against DistroKid, filed on September 15 in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
“A very small number of recordings distributed through DistroKid have been removed in response to claims made by UMG,” Amanda Ferri, DistroKid’s VP of Artist Services, told The Verge.
“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.”
“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.”
Amanda Ferri, DistroKid (via The Verge)
Some of the artists whose tracks DistroKid removed say the music was not made using AI, according to The Verge.
Musician McGwire said that six of his songs had been taken off streaming services.
He said DistroKid did not contact him before or after the removals, and that he had to approach the company himself to find out why.
Before he could speak to a human agent, McGwire said he first had a “lengthy circular conversation” with a bot.
One of the removed tracks was a cover of Stevie Wonder‘s Isn’t She Lovely, which McGwire said he had licensed.
Another was built on a beat that McGwire bought on a marketplace – one that had also been licensed to other artists.
A further track was pulled over an alleged uncleared sample, according to McGwire, who said the song he had supposedly sampled came out two years after his own.
Rapper Insane Ian posted on X that he “had an original song taken down with no warning, and they wouldn’t tell [him] why either.”
Rapper King Chase told The Verge that an entire album by an artist he had been working with was removed, and that DistroKid neither informed them nor gave a reason.
“The album had been up for 3–4 years without incident,” King Chase said, adding that there had been “no copyright strikes or anything either.”
MBW has not independently verified the rights status of the recordings cited by McGwire, Insane Ian, and King Chase, or whether their removals were among those made in response to UMG’s claims.
DistroKid‘s published guidance on copyright removals says artists who believe, in good faith, that their content was taken down “as a result of a misidentification or mistake” can submit a DMCA-compliant counter-notice.
Once a valid counter-notice is filed, DistroKid says it is “obligated to wait 10 business days before reinstating any content or allowing a user to re-upload the affected content.”
The same page states that streaming services “may choose not to reinstate content” based on their own terms, policies, “or other factors that are outside of DistroKid‘s control.”
DistroKid‘s distribution agreement reserves the right to remove a recording from streaming services “if we receive any legal claims regarding the particular Recording(s).”
The plaintiffs in UMG’s case are UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, and Capitol CMG.
Their complaint alleges that “DistroKid is flooding platforms with AI-generated ‘slop’ that siphons revenue and listeners from the legitimate artists and rightsholders.”
It also claims that DistroKid “proliferates infringing tracks across platforms, and continues that distribution even when it knows the tracks infringe Plaintiffs’ (or others’) rights.”
UMG‘s filing draws a line on AI in a footnote, stating: “This lawsuit is not about the distribution of AI-generated music when clearly disclosed as such.”
Part of the copyright case concerns rights conflicts flagged by the rights-management systems of YouTube, Meta, TikTok, and other services.
“Time and again, DistroKid concedes that it does not have rights in the sound recording,” the complaint states. “Here is where it gets egregious: after acknowledging that it does not have rights in the track, DistroKid continues to distribute that exact same recording to other Digital Services.”
UMG argues that, once DistroKid relinquishes its claim to a track, “it should stop distributing that track across all Digital Services, not just the one on which it got caught.”
Among the remedies UMG is seeking is an injunction requiring DistroKid “to promptly remove from all Digital Services all infringing tracks” and to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.
As MBW reported last month, UMG’s exhibits list 1,000 of its recordings that it says were copied by tracks DistroKid delivered to streaming services.
The complaint adds that UMG’s investigation has so far identified nearly 2,000 infringing DistroKid-distributed recordings.
UMG further alleges that DistroKid delivered nearly 12 million tracks to one unnamed streaming service in the six months before the suit was filed – over half of all tracks delivered to that service.
In July, private equity firm CVC Capital Partners agreed to acquire a majority stake in DistroKid, with longtime backer Insight Partners retaining a “significant minority stake.”
MBW revealed in January that DistroKid was exploring a sale, with a price of around USD $2 billion under discussion at the time.
DistroKid is not the first distributor to be sued by UMG.
In November 2024, UMG, ABKCO Music & Records, and Concord Music Group sued Believe and its subsidiary TuneCore, seeking damages of at least USD $500 million.
UMG and Believe settled that case in April 2026, with all claims dismissed with prejudice and financial terms not disclosed.
DistroKid was a founding member of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance, which launched in 2023, and remains a member.
It was not among the signatories when IFPI launched its Streaming Integrity Initiative on September 14, the day before UMG filed its lawsuit.Music Business Worldwide
