Complaint, UMG Recordings v. DistroKid (D. Del., 2026)

This page summarizes docket entry 1 in UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC and Capitol CMG, Inc. v. DistroKid, LLC, Kid Distro Holdings, LLC and DK Holdco, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-01156 (D. Del.), a 52-page complaint filed 15 September 2026, together with its 36-page attachment of Exhibits A and B. The complaint pairs a state-law deceptive trade practices claim, directed at the distribution of mass-generated AI tracks under representations that DistroKid serves human artists, with federal copyright claims over remixed, sped-up, sampled and compiled copies of the plaintiffs' recordings. The case-tracking page is UMG Recordings v. DistroKid.

Provenance

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01156 · PACER gov.uscourts.ded.94617 · CourtListener docket ID 74792008
• Filed: 2026-09-15 · Jury demand: Plaintiffs · Judge: Maryellen Noreika (assigned 2026-09-16, per the docket)
• Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Kelly E. Farnan, who signed, and Louis K. Kettering) as Delaware counsel; Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (Glenn Pomerantz, Kelly M. Klaus, Rose Leda Ehler, Oliver Brown, Ariella Park) of counsel
• Copy read: the RECAP copy of entry 1, storage.courtlistener.com, and of entry 1-1 (Exhibits A–B), storage.courtlistener.com. Both were read in full.

The filed complaint contains seven figures, reproduced in the PDF as images. Figure 3, a graph of weekly releases by distributor from 2016 to 2026 attributed to an unnamed "Digital Service," is redacted.

Parties

The plaintiffs, referred to collectively as "UMG," are UMG Recordings, Inc. (a Delaware corporation), Capitol Records, LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and Capitol CMG, Inc. (a California corporation), each with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California (¶¶ 28–30). The complaint describes their catalogues as including recordings by Ariana Grande, Elton John, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga, Nirvana and Rihanna (¶ 31). The plaintiffs' Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, filed the same day, names Universal Music Group, Inc., Universal Music Group Holdings, Inc. and Universal Music Group, N.V. as corporate parents and Bolloré SE as another affiliate (Source: courtlistener.com).

The defendants, referred to jointly as "DistroKid," are three Delaware limited liability companies with principal places of business in New York: DistroKid, LLC (organized 13 September 2018), Kid Distro Holdings, LLC (organized 12 September 2018) and DK Holdco, LLC (organized 5 August 2021). On information and belief, the complaint alleges that the first two are wholly owned subsidiaries of DK Holdco and that all three jointly developed and implemented the policies governing review, monetization and distribution of recordings (¶¶ 34–38). It records that DistroKid was founded in 2013, that Insight Partners valued it at $1.3 billion in a 2021 investment, and that on 6 July 2026 it announced a majority investment by CVC Capital Partners after a reported $2 billion valuation (¶¶ 46–48). The complaint states that DistroKid is identified in Figure 3 "by its older corporate name, PK Interactive" (¶ 60).

Theory of the case

The complaint pleads two related theories. The first is that DistroKid misrepresents what it distributes. Paragraph 2 sets out three false impressions DistroKid is alleged to give: "(1) that the music DistroKid distributes consists of artist-backed releases, created and owned by real human artists (not AI mass-generated content); (2) that DistroKid acts in furtherance of the Digital Services' policies and the Music Fights Fraud Alliance's initiatives to stop the mass upload of AI 'slop' and other manipulative tactics aimed at generating revenue by crowding out human creators; and (3) that DistroKid takes a stance against copyright infringement." The second is that DistroKid directly and vicariously infringes the plaintiffs' sound recordings and keeps distributing copies after conceding, on one platform, that it holds no rights in them.

Two footnotes limit the first theory. Footnote 4 states that artists "may use AI as one of many tools in creating, producing, or releasing music and Plaintiffs are not challenging those uses," and defines an "artist-backed release" as one where the artist and distributor "are accountable for the accuracy of the metadata and stand behind the ownership and human creativity in the release." Footnote 5 states: "This lawsuit is not about the distribution of AI-generated music when clearly disclosed as such. This lawsuit is about DistroKid masquerading as something it is not and benefiting from that false impression."

The distribution chain

The complaint describes consumers reaching music through "Digital Services" (Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, YouTube, Meta/Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, among others), which contract with record companies and distributors authorized to supply them. It alleges that Spotify and Apple Music "contract only with authorized distributors who have been pre-vetted" as having said they will comply with platform policies (¶¶ 3, 44). It quotes Spotify's September 2025 policy prohibiting "[s]pam tactics such as mass uploads, duplicates, SEO hacks, artificially short track abuse, and other forms of slop" and "uploaders [from] fraudulently deliver[ing] music (AI-generated or otherwise) to another artist's profile across streaming services" (¶ 43). The plaintiffs plead that they compete with DistroKid as distributors (¶¶ 42, 86; n. 3).

DistroKid's representations

The representations the complaint relies on are DistroKid's "Artist first, always" marketing (¶ 50); testimonials describing it as "the best music distributor out there for indie artists" (¶ 51); help-centre "rules" requiring that uploads follow streaming services' guidelines, including "[n]o mass-generated spam" and no "gam[ing] streaming algorithms or flood[ing] platforms with generic content" (¶ 52); DistroKid's membership of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance, described as "a nonprofit association of major rightsholders and distributors that have partnered to detect and prevent streaming fraud" (¶ 53); and representations, which the plaintiffs say they infer from their own dealings with the same services, that the recordings DistroKid delivers are non-infringing and policy-compliant (¶ 54; n. 30).

Volume and AI-generated accounts

The complaint alleges that DistroKid was reported in 2021 to ingest 35,000 new tracks a day and now claims "[o]ver 4 million artists" and a catalogue of more than 60 million songs (¶ 56). Its principal volume example appears twice. Paragraph 9 describes "Lofi Chill" as "one of DistroKid's highest-volume 'artists'" that "released 4,562 tracks in a single twelve-month period," the "equivalent of 20-30 full-length albums every month," and says "Chill Flow Radio" and "Mellow Vibes Radio" "each released thousands of tracks in the same period." Paragraph 59 calls Lofi Chill "DistroKid's highest-volume account holder," gives its output as 4,562 unique tracks averaging 380 a month, and quantifies the other two accounts at 1,901 tracks (158 a month) and 1,615 tracks (135 a month). It adds that "technical analysis" shows "over 97% for Chill Flow Radio and over 98% for Mellow Vibes Radio" of their tracks "are raw outputs from the AI song generator, Suno." No Suno percentage is given for Lofi Chill, and the complaint does not say who performed the analysis. The account names are alleged to be "search-optimized genre-related phrases" chosen to surface in searches and algorithmic playlists (¶¶ 9, 59; n. 23).

For the platform-level picture, the complaint alleges that DistroKid "now accounts for more than 50% of all weekly track releases on one major Digital Service" and distributed "nearly twelve million tracks total" to that service in the past six months, "over half of all tracks delivered to the Service and more than all other distributors combined" (¶ 60). The service is not named. In the deception count it alleges, on information and belief, that "tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and possibly more" of DistroKid's recordings "are purely AI content uploaded by anonymous account holders" (¶ 108).

ISRC theft

Footnote 7 defines ISRC as the "International Standard Recording Code," a code "assigned to each version of a track by the distributor." The complaint describes "ISRC theft" as an account holder submitting a track "under the same unique identifying code assigned to one of Plaintiffs' legitimate recordings, so that the impostor track diverts streams and royalties from the legitimate rightsholder" (¶ 9). Its example is a DistroKid-distributed track titled "Juice Newton" by an artist named "Candy DuIfer," bearing the same ISRC as Juice Newton's "Angel of the Morning." A footnote states that the artist name "appears to be spelled with an uppercase 'I' in an attempt to confuse listeners searching for the legitimate artist, Candy Dulfer." It alleges that DistroKid did not remove the track after a dispute, so that "all revenue generated by the legitimate track on that Service is currently frozen" because DistroKid "refused to disclaim ownership, despite UMG's requests" (¶ 61; n. 24).

The Music Fights Fraud Alliance database

The complaint alleges that as an MFFA member DistroKid has access to a database identifying tracks delisted by distributors or Digital Services and the reasons, that some artists banned by other open-access distributors carry "hundreds of flags" in it, and that DistroKid has distributed tracks bearing ISRCs already flagged (¶ 62). The example is the account "Lounge Ibiza Cafè": when a different, unnamed distributor offboarded it for streaming fraud in April 2026, that distributor flagged 196 of its tracks in the database, and in June 2026 DistroKid distributed Lounge Ibiza Cafè tracks "bearing the same flagged ISRCs" (¶ 63). Paragraph 9 alleges more generally that DistroKid admits account holders "already … tagged by the MFFA for streaming fraud at the time they sign up."

Infringing copies

The copyright allegations concern three kinds of copy.

• Remixes and speed-altered versions, sometimes under the original title: a slowed version of Ellie Goulding's "Love Me Like You Do" titled "Love Me Like You Do"; four separate DistroKid tracks titled "Favorite Song" copying Toosii's recording; and tracks titled "Favorite Song (Remix)," "Unholy – Radio Edit" and "Judas Sped Up" (¶ 12).
• Copies using the original cover art, which the complaint says steer listeners choosing among multiple versions toward the unauthorized one. Figures 1A and 1B set Sam Smith and Kim Petras's "Unholy" beside "Unholy - Radio Edit" by LDS; Figures 4A and 4B set Shontelle's "Impossible" beside "Impossible – Shontelle (SIIDZ Remix)" by SIIDZ (¶¶ 13, 68).
• Instrumentals with new vocals, unlicensed samples, and whole recordings inside compilations. "Dance Rock Mix, Vol. 1," over two hours long, is alleged to contain extended clips of Hanson's "MMMBop" and Joan Osborne's "One Of Us"; "Friday Night Vibes Vol 2. || Jersey Club, 00's, & Reggae," about 40 minutes long, samples Ja Rule's "Always On Time" and Bubba Sparxxx's "Ms. New Booty" (¶¶ 14, 69).

The complaint does not allege that the infringing copies in Exhibits A and B are AI-generated. It pleads that the plaintiffs identified each exhibit infringement through a Digital Service's rights-management tool, naming YouTube's Content ID, and verified it by comparing audio files manually and/or with the content-identification tool Pex (¶ 70). It alleges that the investigation has identified "nearly 2,000 infringing DistroKid-distributed recordings" (¶ 67), that DistroKid "has infringed and continues to infringe thousands" of the plaintiffs' recordings (¶ 11), and that the exhibits are "the tip of the iceberg" because millions of tracks are never submitted to rights-management tools or escape detection (¶ 15).

Knowledge and continued distribution

The knowledge allegations rest on the conflict process in the rights-management systems of YouTube, Meta and TikTok. When audio fingerprinting matches a DistroKid delivery to a plaintiff's recording, a "reference overlap" goes to both parties. The complaint alleges that a DistroKid employee reviews it and either clicks "Yes, assert ownership" or "No, exclude overlaps," or lets it expire, which has the same effect as "No" (¶¶ 73–75). Having conceded on one service, DistroKid is alleged to keep delivering "the same track, bearing the same ISRC" to others, most of which have no rights-management tools, and to do so "in the lion's share of cases" (¶¶ 77–78). Five DistroKid tracks are listed as removed from TikTok and/or YouTube for rights conflicts but still on Spotify and/or Apple Music at filing: "Buy Me Presents" by Jessica Da Silva, "Hypnotized" by Bri Hazyy, "IT GIRL Freestyle" by Lolo Renny, "Mystery" by David Diaveli and "Slow Money" by Illori Vice (¶ 84). The complaint characterizes DistroKid's approach as "move fast when it helps us, and move hardly at all when caught red-handed" (¶ 17).

Financial benefit and label-style services

For the financial-benefit element, the complaint points to DistroKid's subscription model, which it says rewards unlimited uploads (¶¶ 65, 80, 87), and to a shift already under way toward revenue shares (¶ 81). It cites per-track add-ons of $0.99 for listing on "discovery-based platforms" such as Gracenote, $26.99 for Dolby Atmos review and $29 for a "Leave a Legacy" add-on that keeps a track live after a subscription lapses (¶ 82). It also cites the "Social Media Pack," under which DistroKid delivers recordings into the user-generated-content monetization systems of YouTube, Meta, TikTok, Spotify and others and keeps 20% of the revenue (¶¶ 83, 90). To show human involvement in delivery, it points to Content Operations Specialists who administer YouTube's Content ID, to staff handling of disputed rejections, and to online reporting of an internal system that flags accounts for faster distribution (¶¶ 91–93). The complaint argues that DistroKid functions as a record label through HyperFollow promotional pages, which host and stream portions of recordings and collect fan data, as well as Mixea mastering, the Vizy video generator, DistroVid, "Direct" merchandise and playlist pitching (¶¶ 94–98).

Counts

Federal jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), with supplemental jurisdiction over the Delaware claim under § 1367(a) (¶¶ 22–23).

Count One frames the representations as claims about the recordings' "characteristics," "standard" and "quality": "that they are original, authorized artist-backed releases, and that the recordings comply with the Digital Services' policies against the distribution of AI slop and that all rights have been cleared." It lists "public statements, agreements, and participation in the Music Fights Fraud Alliance" as the channels (¶ 107). Willfulness is pleaded on the ground that DistroKid keeps making "artists first" and MFFA-mission representations, and representations about specific recordings after conflict notices, "knowing full well that its actual business does not comply" (¶ 113).

The direct-infringement counts locate the copying at ingestion, conversion and reformatting to platform specifications, delivery through "dedicated commercial feeds," and the creation and streaming of copies on HyperFollow pages (¶¶ 118, 139). They plead employee involvement in resolving rejections, deciding "whose content is delivered and how quickly," and handling conflicts track by track (¶¶ 120, 141). The vicarious counts plead that account holders and the Digital Services are the direct infringers "to the extent that DistroKid is not itself legally responsible" (¶¶ 127–128, 148–149). They plead DistroKid's right and ability to control infringement through ingestion before delivery, removal of tracks when subscriptions lapse, track-by-track conflict resolution, and terms reserving the right to decline or remove any recording "for any other reason in our business judgment" (¶¶ 129, 150). Direct financial benefit is pleaded through the draw of "fast, unlimited, no-questions-asked distribution," per-track fees and the 20% Social Media Pack share (¶¶ 130, 151). Each infringement count pleads willfulness on the ground that DistroKid kept distributing after conceding in other services' systems that its account holders lacked rights (¶¶ 121, 132, 142, 153).

The Delaware pleading

Count One and its predicate allegations are drawn around Delaware. The complaint alleges harm to "consumers in Delaware" (¶ 104). It says the Digital Services, "many of which are incorporated in Delaware," agree to carry DistroKid's tracks in the mistaken belief that it vets account holders (¶ 109). It alleges that Delaware consumers are misled "into believing they are engaging with real artists when they, in fact, are being duped by AI bot farms" (¶ 110). It notes that two of the plaintiffs are incorporated in Delaware (¶ 111), and that Delaware artists are "misled to believe their music distributor is acting in their interest and safeguarding the recorded music pipeline from AI slop and bad actors" (¶ 112). It alleges that the plaintiffs suffer competitive injuries "in Delaware" and that DistroKid "chooses to target distribution of its tracks to consumers in Delaware" (¶ 114). Personal jurisdiction and venue are pleaded separately, on the ground that all three defendants are organized under Delaware law (¶¶ 24–27). The complaint gives no other reason for the choice of forum.

Relief sought

The prayer asks for:

• (A) an injunction under 6 Del. C. § 2533(a) against representations giving "the false impression that the majority of the sound recordings it distributes are artist-backed releases; that it complies with Digital Services and the MFFA's policies and aims of reducing the distribution of misleading mass-generated and manipulative content; and that any recording Defendants distribute is authorized and non-infringing (when they are not)";
• (B) statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) "in an amount up to the maximum per infringed work," or actual damages and profits under § 504(b) at the plaintiffs' election;
• (C) an injunction against direct and indirect infringement, including an order "to promptly remove from all Digital Services all infringing tracks and promptly terminate the accounts of account holders who are repeat infringers";
• (D) impoundment and destruction of infringing copies;
• (E)–(G) interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief.

Each of the four copyright counts states that the plaintiffs are "entitled to the maximum statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in the amount of $150,000 with respect to each work infringed" (¶¶ 122, 133, 143, 154). The DTPA count seeks injunctive relief and attorneys' fees only (¶ 115). No aggregate dollar figure appears anywhere in the complaint. Applied to the 1,000 exhibit works, the per-work maximum gives the $150 million that Music Business Worldwide described as "a theoretical maximum … for now" (Source: musicbusinessworldwide.com). The complaint itself presents the exhibit works as examples, alleges nearly 2,000 identified infringing recordings (¶ 67), and anticipates "thousands (or more) additional infringing works" in discovery (¶ 11).

Exhibits A and B

Exhibit A lists 955 registered sound recordings and Exhibit B lists 45 pre-1972 recordings "indexed with the Copyright Office," for a total of 1,000 rows (¶¶ 32, 70). Each Exhibit A row gives artist, track title, registration number and plaintiff. The plaintiff is UMG Recordings, Inc. in 886 rows and Capitol Records, LLC in 69. Exhibit B gives the filer and filing date of the pre-1972 index entry in place of a registration number, and names UMG Recordings, Inc. in 31 rows, Capitol Records, LLC in 12 and "Motown Records, a Division of UMG Recordings, Inc." in 2. Exhibit B runs from Bing Crosby to Timi Yuro and includes recordings by Frank Sinatra, Nina Simone, James Brown, Marvin Gaye and The Beatles. No row in either exhibit names Capitol CMG, Inc.

All the recordings the complaint names as infringed appear in Exhibit A: "Love Me Like You Do," "Unholy," "Judas," "Favorite Song" and "Favorite Song (Remix)," "Impossible," "MMMBop," "One Of Us," "Always On Time" and "Ms. New Booty." Juice Newton's "Angel of the Morning," the ISRC example, does not appear in either exhibit. The exhibits list only the plaintiffs' recordings. They do not identify the corresponding DistroKid tracks, account holders or platforms.

Rows 481 and 482 of Exhibit A are identical (Kendrick Lamar, "Not Like Us," SR0001007455). Twenty-five registration numbers appear in more than one row, some because a title recurs with overlapping registrations and some because separate tracks share one registration, as with three Justin Bieber tracks in rows 420, 421 and 430. The complaint does not address whether the 1,000 rows correspond to 1,000 separately compensable works.

Relationships

• related: UMG Recordings v. DistroKid — the case-tracking page.
• related: Music Fights Fraud Alliance (MFFA) — the anti-fraud association whose mission and database the deception count invokes.
• instance-of: AI Copyright — copyright claims over distribution of unauthorized copies of sound recordings.
• related: AI Content Saturation (\"AI Slop\") — the mass-uploaded AI-generated tracks the deception count concerns.
• related: AI Music Generation, Suno — the complaint attributes over 97% and over 98% of two accounts' tracks to Suno outputs.
• related: UMG Recordings v. Suno (AI music training data) — the suit, with UMG Recordings among the plaintiffs, against the generator named in ¶ 59.
• related: Media, Journalism & Entertainment — AI Deployment