Iggy Azalea slams Universal Music as “criminals” and the “scummiest company” which “actively takes advantage” of artists

Iggy Azalea this weekend declared that her former record company Universal Music are “criminals who actively take advantage of all of their artists in perpetuity for their own gain”. Dubbing the major “the scummiest company”, she demanded that they “do better in their treatment of the artists who quite literally earn them millions”. 

These claims come off the back of a dispute over unpaid royalties stemming from the music Azalea released with Universal-owned labels in the mid 2010s, including 2014 album ‘The New Classic’ and the big hit ‘Fancy’. 

In a post on X, Azalea claims she is owed “millions of dollars in back pay”, with unpaid international royalties “in the eight figure range”, but the major has so far offered a mere $18,000 as part of a legal settlement. 

It's “crazy”, her X post begins, that “in my entire career I was never paid a single royalty by Universal Music for anything outside of the USA. They owe me millions of dollars in back pay, that they technically stole from me… the amount owed is in the eight figure range”.  

Azalea’s legal team is seemingly on the case. Last week, she claims, Universal “tried to respond to my lawyer and offer me a settlement of $18,000”. According to her lawyer, she says, that’s “a normal response”, and once court proceedings are launched “they end up paying millions as they’re supposed to”. 

Keen to turn the royalties bust up into a campaign, Azalea says she’ll be fine because she can afford the lawyers and accountants required to force payment. However, she adds, they “do this to so many artists who unfortunately can’t afford to fight for what they’re owed thus they get away with this behaviour”. 

Royalty disputes between artists and labels are nothing new of course, with conflict often more likely once an artist is no longer actively working with a label on new material but is still receiving royalties from past releases. Because it can take years for artists to pay back advances and other recoupable upfront costs out of their share of the income their recordings generate, the real disputes often come many years later. 

Obviously we don’t know the specifics about Azalea’s royalty gripes from her single post on X and Universal is only likely to respond in detail, and provide its counter argument, if a lawsuit is filed. 

However, gripes over international royalties are pretty common. And many have accused the majors of exploiting the fact most artists can’t afford to audit their labels, even though they would usually have an audit right in their record contract, which means any accounting errors or policy decisions that disadvantage the artist will often go unnoticed. 

Plus, when the superstars do instigate audits, if they discover accounting errors or policy decisions that could be impacting on many other artists, both the artist and their team are usually bound to a non-disclosure agreement, meaning they can’t share what they learned with the wider music community. 

Royalty disputes do go legal on a pretty regular basis. The Cranberries recently sued Universal Music over claims it is applying physical-era international deductions on streaming income, which means Universal’s foreign subsidiaries deduct 40% off digital revenue earned in their markets, and The Cranberries’ royalties are then calculated based on what their home label receives. 

In the physical era, the 40% was justified because of the distribution and marketing costs incurred by the local subsidiary. But the deduction is still being applied on streaming income even though, in the words of the band’s lawsuit, the local subsidiary incurs “few, if any, costs”. 

The Cranberries also accuse Universal of using the Vevo business it co-owns with Sony Music to basically double-dip on YouTube income. So Vevo charges a commission on the YouTube income it collects on behalf of Universal, and the band are then paid a royalty based on what the label itself receives, even though Vevo is owned by the major. 

Limp Bizkit’s Fred Durst is also involved in a big old legal battle with Universal over the payment and reporting of royalties. Durst’s lawsuit said Universal had “designed and implemented” a royalty system “deliberately designed to conceal artists’ royalties and keep those profits for itself”. 

But the major was equally forthright in its response to his litigation, insisting that Durst’s legal claims were not only “based on a fallacy” but also “eviscerated” by an email exchange between his team and the record company. 

We await to see if Azalea’s royalty beef results in legal action. But for now the musician has a clear message for her former business partner: “Universal Music really needs to do better in their treatment of the artists who quite literally earn them millions via intellectual property they had zero part in creating”.