Some musicians say their tracks disappeared from streaming services without warning, leaving them to seek answers from distributor DistroKid. The company confirmed to The Verge that the removals were made in response to claims from Universal Music Group (UMG), which filed a lawsuit against DistroKid in September.
Artists describe removals with little explanation
Musician McGwire said six of his songs were removed. He reported receiving no communication before or after the takedowns and said he had to contact DistroKid to find out what had happened.
Reaching a person was difficult, he said. McGwire described a “lengthy circular conversation” with a bot before he connected with a live agent. The experience left him frustrated not only by the missing music, but by the effort required to get an explanation.
The removed tracks raised different rights questions. One was a cover of Stevie Wonder’s “Isn’t She Lovely,” which McGwire said he had properly licensed. Another used a beat he had purchased through a marketplace and that other artists had also licensed.
McGwire said the most troubling removal involved an alleged uncleared sample. The song he was accused of sampling was released two years after his track, according to his account.
Reports extend beyond one musician
Nerdcore rapper Insane Ian said on social media that an original song had been removed without warning, and that DistroKid would not tell him why. His account echoes a central complaint from the artists: they say they cannot tell what prompted a takedown or how to challenge it.
Rapper King Chase told The Verge that an entire album by an artist he had been working with was removed. He said there had been no communication or explanation, even though the album had been available for 3-4 years without incident. He also said there had been “no copyright strikes or anything either.”
These examples show why removal notices matter. When a distributor takes music offline, an artist may need to understand whether the issue concerns a sample, a cover, a purchased beat, or another claim. Without a clear reason and a way to reach support, artists say they are left guessing about what went wrong and what they can do next.
UMG’s claims and DistroKid’s response
UMG’s September lawsuit claims DistroKid created an “AI-slop pipeline.” DistroKid says the takedowns are a response to claims made by UMG, while artists say non-AI music has also been caught up in the removals they describe.
Amanda Ferri, DistroKid’s VP of Artist Services, told The Verge: “A very small number of recordings distributed through DistroKid have been removed in response to claims made by UMG. 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.”
The company’s statement acknowledges disruption while disputing the allegations behind the case. But for the musicians who report losing access to their releases, that broader explanation does not answer the immediate questions: which claim affected a particular track, why it was removed, and how the decision can be reviewed.
Transparency is part of the dispute
The dispute puts the mechanics of music distribution in focus. Artists rely on distributors to make recordings available, and a removal can interrupt that access. The accounts shared by McGwire, Insane Ian, and King Chase suggest that communication and recourse are key concerns alongside the underlying copyright claims.
For artists, a useful notice would make the reason for a removal understandable and give them a practical way to ask questions. The reports in this case describe the opposite experience: music disappearing, explanations difficult to obtain, and uncertainty about how to respond. DistroKid says it is working to limit disruption while protecting artists’ ability to release music; affected musicians are seeking clearer answers about their own work.