UMG’s Chief Digital Officer Talks Udio Deal, Suno Lawsuit — And What Really Happened With TikTok in 2024

On the new episode of Billboard's 'On the Record' podcast, Michael Nash says of new tech: "If you don't claim a seat at the dinner table...you'll wind up on the menu."

It’s obvious now, in 2026, that the music industry is in the midst of an AI revolution — but for Universal Music Group’s chief digital officer and executive vp, Michael Nash, AI is a disruption he’s been waiting on since the 2010s.

“We actually had brought some gen AI companies to [a] company conference in 2019, and we were playing the output of the music models for our executives, who at the time were saying, ‘That doesn’t sound very good. I’m not really sure where this is going,’” Nash remembers. “But I believed that there were [going to be] significant implication[s].”

Now, looking back on it, he feels that this proactivity is why the world’s largest music company is “in a position to focus on the opportunities” that the new tech poses now — as well as its risks.bul

These days — after announcing deals with Splice, Klay, Udio, Nvidia, Stability AI and many more — it is clear that UMG is interested in partnering with as many AI music companies as possible, as long as they get a proverbial “seat at the table,” as Nash often says, to make sure its interests are kept in mind.

What’s one of UMG’s most important interests right now? Getting platforms to agree to a “walled garden” approach, meaning that users of an AI platform can play with AI music in the service, but cannot take it out of the service. To Nash, non-compliant AI companies are “effectively us[ing] artists’ content and their brands to create derivatives that [are] going to compete with the artists on other platforms” like Spotify, Apple Music or TikTok.

“We didn’t think that made any sense [to work with companies who disagreed with the ‘walled garden’], [and] we didn’t feel like when going to artists for their support to opt-in to these services that it was going to be a very compelling pitch,” says Nash.

In the latest episode of Billboard’s music business podcast, On the Record With Kristin Robinson, Nash details how UMG negotiated some of its most important deals of the last decade, how it feels about the future of AI music — and why the company actually removed its music from TikTok in 2024.

Watch the full episode below, or find it on Spotify, YouTube and Apple Podcasts.

This week will mark the two-year anniversary of UMG removing its music from TikTok after licensing negotiations fell apart. Set the scene for me. What was the lead-up to making the call?

Michael Nash: Well, it was developing over the holiday season…We were in a process of trying to sort out what direction we were going to take in the negotiation, and the negotiation fell apart. Importantly, there were economic principles that we were very focused on…There was a proposal [from TikTok] that the service would use AI music in a way that went far outside of what we thought really made sense for us to support in the interest of our artists. And specifically, what they were proposing is that creators would be able to generate AI content, and that AI content on the TikTok platform would get paid on the same basis as artists’ [music]. It would dilute the artists’ royalty pool. We felt that that was a hill we would die on. We felt like that was a drop-dead issue in the evolution of AI. If we got to a point where artists’ royalties were being displaced by pure AI-generated content, that was going to lead to a completely unacceptable outcome. So we took a very, very strong position, and the standoff materialized.

Looking back on that, it was so important [to do.] From that time forward, it’s been a focal point of so many of our [streaming service] agreements….Since reaching that new agreement, TikTok has been a great partner…We came out of it in good shape. I think, Lucian told me, [this was the] only time in his tenure that he’s ever reached a point in a negotiation where there was no go-forward. The only time he has had to go dark on a platform. It’s certainly the only time that happened in my tenure with Universal Music. A very unusual situation.

Ultimately, when you got to a deal with TikTok three months later, did you get what you wanted, as far as forbidding the AI content dilution?

Yes, we got the best protections that we had been able to obtain to that point, and they remain some of the best protections that we have in any agreement with the music service, in terms of AI protection and what we call anti-dilution, meaning our royalties won’t be diluted by pure AI content.

From my vantage point, it seemed like UMG was losing leverage as the “boycott” of TikTok went on. Top UMG artists were finding ways to continue to promote their music on the platform instead of standing with the company and its choice to remove music. Olivia Rodrigo, for example, used some UGC remixes of her songs that hadn’t been removed. Then, Taylor Swift was a really big turning point, in my view, because she found a way to put her catalog back on there to support the upcoming release of The Tortured Poets Department. I’m wondering, did UMG artists finding ways to stay on TikTok hurt your negotiating position?

That’s a very interesting way of packaging up the different developments we were having at the time. I would say ultimately, the fact that we got a really good deal going forward, and we were able to secure the single most important strategic principle and a better agreement with TikTok overall, suggests that we had the right negotiation posture to be able to get to the outcome. Certainly, a company like Universal, with a large, diverse stable of artists, a lot of voices, a lot of perspectives, we understand the importance of access to that platform for our artists, and that’s why we worked really hard to secure a new agreement. I would say, by and large, there was a strong level of support in the music community around the position that we took, [which] was very helpful in enabling us to secure the right deal going forward.

Back when Napster and peer-to-peer file sharing disrupted the music industry, many criticized music’s response to it, which was largely to fight it and not accept that it was happening. Now, we are in the midst of another disruption with generative AI. I know the music industry at large has been very focused on messaging that it would not repeat the mistakes of the past. Can you compare and contrast then and now?

Some lessons were definitely learned. I think some [people] in the industry at the end of the last century were wondering if it would be possible just to turn the internet off. [Laughs.] Obviously, the disruption that came was profound, and it halved industry revenues on a global basis. And a lot of adjustments needed to be made to reconcile how you address disruptive technology.

The way that Sir Lucian, our CEO, puts it, is that it’s not only futile to oppose the evolution of technology, it’s counter-productive. If you go back over the last century…and you think about everything that’s happened with developments in technology…Ultimately, every single technology disruption over the last century has been really good for the music industry when the reconciliation is achieved and you understand how to surf the wave. A lot of that is because our artists are innovators, and our artists are central to culture, and technology and music come together in media culture in unique and important ways. It creates a lot of value.

UMG, along with Warner Music Group and Sony Music, launched a blockbuster copyright infringement lawsuit against AI music companies Suno and Udio in the summer of 2024, alleging that they were training on your copyrighted sound recordings without proper licensing. Late last year, UMG settled with Udio. I’m wondering why Udio came first. Tell me about coming to the table with Udio and why you felt like you could reach a settlement there?

At the beginning of this inflection point in the evolution of generative AI, we established a core philosophy…The North Star for us was to center the conversation on artists, defend their rights, protect their interests, and from that foundation, build out our creative and commercial opportunities… Always the perspective was ‘defense into offense.’

So I would say specifically with Udio, I give their CEO, Andrew Sanchez, a lot of credit for quickly coming to us with a perspective that he wanted to reorient the direction of the company, to come out of litigation and settle, but to focus on developing products that we really aligned with. The concept that they had around developing a super fan product that would enable hyper-personalization, a level of customization of the experiences and interactions with the music — I can’t go too much further, because the product hasn’t launched yet and plans are still confidential.

Almost all the value in the music ecosystem is established by two things. One, artists connecting with bands that love them, and two, fans participating in music culture. Concepts of products that deepen the artist-fan relationship and those that allow fans to participate in music culture really appeal to us as kind of hitting that sweet spot of how value is created. Credit to Udio and Andrew and the management of the company [for] working really hard to develop a compelling proposition, working with us to resolve the litigation and establishing this path forward. We’re happy to be in business with them.

I imagined the way that it went was UMG said, ‘We can settle, but here’s what we want.’ And then Udio said yes. I didn’t realize that it was the other way around — where Udio comes with a new idea to pivot, in fact, and it happened to align.

I think it’s possible to insert in that narrative that litigation is the mother of invention, a degree of necessity. There was a very collaborative dialogue. Early on, it was, you know, ‘[Here’s] five ideas, and which one seemed to be most interesting?’ We did have some very, very clear principles that are now manifest in what their plans are.

The ‘walled garden’ construct [meaning that generated works on an AI platform cannot be downloaded from the service and used elsewhere] is probably something that’s worth talking about for just a minute, because that’s not something that all the [AI music] services are planning on offering, but the ones that we’re supporting are planning on offering that.

Do you think that the lawsuit against Suno and Udio was impossible to avoid?

It’s absolutely an instance of, ‘Don’t claim a seat at the dinner table, and you’ll wind up on the menu.’ We had to take a position about the wholesale ingestion of our entire library of copyrights on which the value of our company is predicated as a training set. The rights and interests of our artists were not being consulted. There was no consent sought, no model around their compensation was offered. We had absolutely no position, [except] again, ‘defense into offense.’ You take a position around your rights and your interests, and then you sit down and work out what the win looks like on the other side of litigation.

WMG has come to a deal and settled with Suno, but UMG has not. Why haven’t you reached an agreement with Suno yet? Does it have to do with its lack of a “walled garden”?

First of all, I have to be careful because we’re in the midst of ongoing litigation…but I think that if I treated your question as a rhetorical question, I would say yes, having articulated the walled garden distinction and its importance [for UMG,] that’s kind of a hat-hanger in this discussion.