Major record labels want AI tracks banned from music charts

If a song cooked up entirely by an AI prompt quietly climbed to the top of the global charts, the legacy music industry would lose its mind. To make sure that nightmare scenario stays a fantasy, the major labels are now trying to lock the front door.

The big three record labels — Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group — alongside indie label Mom+Pop Music, have proposed strict new rules to ban AI-generated tracks from official international music charts.

The proposal has already won the backing of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). However, no major chart organization, like Billboard, has announced plans to actually enforce it.

Prove it is ‘substantially human made’

Earlier this year, industry groups including the RIAA, IFPI, and SAG-AFTRA pushed for standardized labels on AI-generated and AI-assisted tracks. That was essentially a nutrition label approach. The major labels want to take things several steps further by stripping chart eligibility entirely.

According to the proposed guidelines, a song cannot enter official charts unless it satisfies a rigid checklist. The headliner rule is that the track must be substantially human made.

Beyond human authorship, the AI tools used must be properly authorized and lawful, and the underlying models must hold the rights to whatever data they trained on. Songs must also comply with personality rights and copyright laws, avoid violating the AI tool's terms of service, be clearly disclosed to streaming listeners, and not raise any stream or chart manipulation concerns.

Big gray areas, no official takers

While the intent is clear, the practical definitions are basically non-existent. What percentage of human input counts as substantially human made? Does generating a drum loop with AI disqualify an otherwise human pop track? The proposal doesn't say.

There is also zero clarity on what behavior triggers chart manipulation concerns. Sony Music, UMG, and Mom+Pop Music did not immediately respond to requests for clarification.

Crucially, charting organizations hold the ultimate power here, and none of them have signed onto the labels' manifesto yet. Until the chart trackers adopt these guidelines, they remain an industry wishlist.

Why it matters

For creators messing with tools like Suno or Udio, the writing is on the wall: turning automated prompts into mainstream hits is about to get much harder. Even if an AI-assisted song organically goes viral, hazy training data rights or excessive machine input could get you disqualified from official recognition.

For the music business, this is pure defensive positioning. The major labels know they cannot stop generative music from flooding streaming platforms, but they can control the ultimate currency of prestige and commercial value, which is the official charts. Tying chart access to lawful training sets is a calculated attempt to choke off unlicensed AI engines from legitimacy.

We think it is a clever leverage play to force AI startups into licensing agreements, but it carries glaring risks. Detecting where AI ends and human touch begins in modern digital audio workstations is virtually impossible. Without objective technical criteria, these vague rules look less like quality control and more like an arbitrary barrier to protect legacy catalogs.