Universal Music, Sony and Warner Propose Banning AI Tracks From Global Charts

The biggest music labels — Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music Group — together with eight independent partners have released a joint document, "Global Principles for Eligibility". Its position: AI tracks without sufficient involvement of a living human should not appear in international music charts.

What the Big Three proposed

The document sets two requirements at once. First, every track created with AI involvement must carry a clear, standardized label, visible to listeners as well as to platforms and the organizations that run the charts. Second, a label does not automatically earn a track a place in the rankings. The track must meet the "substantially human" criterion, meaning it must be "created predominantly by humans". If it does not, it is excluded from international charts, regardless of its stream count or its position in local streaming top lists.

The Big Three were joined by eight independent companies: Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, HYBE, Mom+Pop Music and Partisan Records.

• Initiators: Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner Music Group
• Supporters: Believe, BMG, Concord, Dirty Hit, Glassnote Records, HYBE, Mom+Pop Music, Partisan Records
• Requirement 1: mandatory labeling for all AI-assisted tracks
• Requirement 2: only tracks created "predominantly by humans" are eligible for international charts

Tracks can enter international charts only if they are created "predominantly by humans" (substantially human) — the key criterion from the joint "Global

Principles for Eligibility" document, published by Sony Music on behalf of all signatories.

Why this is stricter than the RIAA and IFPI proposal

The major labels' proposal follows an existing initiative from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and SAG-AFTRA. That scheme came down to introducing standardized labels for two categories: AI-generated music (created entirely by AI) and AI-assisted music (where AI is one of the tools). Labeled tracks would have kept the right to compete in the charts on equal terms with tracks by human artists; no separate restriction on chart access was envisioned.

The Big Three's initiative fundamentally changes the logic: labeling becomes a necessary but insufficient condition. The main filter is the "predominantly human creation" criterion — not a label to inform listeners, but a threshold for access to the rankings. The RIAA and IFPI proposal contained no such mechanism.

Why charts are the pressure point

International charts — the Billboard Hot 100, the UK Singles Chart and similar rankings — determine far more than a track's popularity. A chart position affects radio rotation, negotiating leverage in contract talks, and the volume of payments to songwriters and performers through royalty-tracking systems. That is why a spot in a global ranking is considered the "gold standard" of a music career. If AI tracks occupied top positions alongside human artists, they would compete directly for limited airplay slots and revenue streams.

That is also why the labels chose charts, rather than streaming catalogs, as the point of leverage. A blanket ban on AI music on platforms is legally and technically unrealistic, whereas chart eligibility rules are an agreement among market players that can be put in place without waiting for government regulation.

What this means

The Big Three's initiative is the majors' first coordinated step from declarative labeling to actual restrictions on access. If chart organizations adopt these principles, AI tracks will end up in a separate niche: shut out of mainstream rankings and the traffic, rotation and royalties that come with them. For AI music developers, it is a direct signal that the market's biggest players are ready to set hard rules without waiting for regulators to act. The open question is who will verify that tracks meet the "predominantly human involvement" criterion, and how.