The major labels propose rules to keep AI slop off the charts

AIEntertainmentMusicThe major labels propose rules to keep AI slop off the chartsTo be eligible for the charts, songs would have to be ‘substantially human made,’ whatever that means.To be eligible for the charts, songs would have to be ‘substantially human made,’ whatever that means.by Terrence O'BrienJul 31, 2026, 4:36 PM UTCLinkShareGiftImage: The Verge / ShutterstockPart OfAll the latest in AI ‘music’see all updates Terrence O'Brien is the Verge’s weekend editor. He’s covered the tech industry for over 18 years and knows a thing or two about synths.Several record labels, including the big three — Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group — have proposed rules regarding chart eligibility for AI songs. In short, they wouldn’t be.The proposal goes quite a bit further than a labeling proposal put forth by the RIAA, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), SAG-AFTRA, and others. That would create a set of standardized labels for AI-generated and AI-assisted music. The labels’ proposal would require songs be clearly labeled, but it would also keep them off international charts unless they met specific criteria, including being “substantially human made.”To be eligible, the songs would also have to respect the terms of service of whatever AI service was used, the model would have to have the rights to any data it was trained on, and “not raise stream or chart manipulation concerns.” What sort of concerns and what constitutes “substatially human made” are currently vague. Sony Music, UMG, and Mom+Pop Music did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.The IFPI has thrown its weight behind the labels’ proposal, though no charting organization has signaled any immediate plan to adopt the rules, the full list of which are:Recordings developed with generative AI services must not be included in official charts where there is reason to believe that they do not satisfy all of the following criteria:Any generative AI services used to develop the recording are properly authorised and lawful.They are substantially human made.They do not raise stream or chart manipulation concerns.They comply with applicable laws, including those relating to copyright, related rights, and personality rights.The making available of the recordings does not breach the terms of the generative AI service used.The use of generative AI services to develop the recording is appropriately signalled to consumers on downstream services (e.g., digital streaming platforms), in accordance with any applicable legislation and/or industry labelling standards.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Terrence O'BrienAIEntertainmentMusicMore in: All the latest in AI ‘music’Suno lost a major copyright suit in Germany.Terrence O'BrienJul 31Artists are lawyering up against AI slop, and some are even winningTerrence O'BrienJul 29Deezer says AI music now makes up half of all daily song uploads.Emma RothJul 21Most PopularMost PopularThis tattoo is permanent, pain-free, and might soon come in the mailXbox CEO lays out priorities in memo after major ‘reset’The loss of Situational AwarenessThe US government just banned RoombasThe ban on robot vacuums won’t make them safer, only worseThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native ad