Limp Bizkit is escalating its claims against Universal Music Group (UMG) in a $200 million lawsuit, stemming from accusations of withheld royalties that date back years.
On March 17, 2025, Judge Percy Anderson ruled that the iconic band’s lawsuit could advance in part, rejecting UMG’s motion to dismiss copyright claims, while determining that numerous other claims must be brought in state courts.
The lawsuit, first filed in October 2024 in Los Angeles’ Central District, alleges that UMG has engaged in practices designed to conceal artists’ royalties and raked in substantial profits without compensating the band, a claim that is more than a simple dispute over percentages.
According to the lawsuit, as of April 2024, Limp Bizkit had not seen a dime in royalties tied to their music. Within the legal documents, the band asserts features of UMG’s financial system are “fraudulent,” allowing the major label access to profits while denying fair compensation to the artists who create the work.
Judge Anderson’s ruling notes: “The Court denies the Motion to Dismiss challenging the sufficiency of the copyright claims. Defendant shall file its Answer to the copyright claims asserted in the first amended complaint by no later than April 7, 2025.” This leaves the issue of ownership of the copyrights crucial to any potential financial retribution for the band.
In a further twist, during early 2024, UMG had approached Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst, encouraging him to become involved with the 25th-anniversary re-release of their hit album, Significant Other. Durst, however, declined involvement, suspecting a “money grab” tactic aimed solely at benefiting UMG. He cited that the band had not been paid any royalties, leading to his refusal.
The dispute has not only called into question the financial handling of Limp Bizkit but also reflects broader concerns about the treatment of artists in the music industry. Limp Bizkit contends that UMG is far from the only label engaging in such practices, claiming that perhaps hundreds of other artists find themselves in similar situations.
Durst’s statements made in the filing indicate awareness of the profits generated from the streaming of their music, stating, “millions of streaming users per month on Spotify alone.” They allege that UMG has profited immensely while failing to pass along any of that income to them as artists. The lawsuit demands accountability for what they describe as deeply rooted fraudulent practices eclipsing fair compensation.
Released in 1999 via Flip Records and later through UMG, Significant Other was both a commercial and cultural milestone. It garnered several hit singles such as “Nookie” and “My Way,” gathering significant attention during performances, including a notorious set at Woodstock ‘99 that witnessed crowd violence attributed to the band’s energy.
Despite this history and significant sales, Limp Bizkit claims it has not received royalties since the release of their albums, including the follow-up 2000 album, Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water. Judge Anderson had previously ruled in January 2025 against Durst’s attempt to void his contract with UMG on grounds of fraud, stating that the band had been paid substantial sums in the past. Yet, with this new ruling, the debate is reopened.
In the latest developments, UMG is due to provide an answer addressing the copyright claims by April 7, leading to critical assessments of how the case will advance when it reaches trial.
The lawsuit’s renewal of focus on rescission of contracts and ownership of copyrights opens a dialogue not just for Limp Bizkit but for a significant number of artists navigating similar scenarios, prompting questions around what rights artists truly have within their engagements with major labels.
As they continue to fight for their owed royalties, Limp Bizkit’s case may serve as a pivotal moment for the recognition of artists’ rights, potentially impacting the wider music industry and future contractual relationships.
