Ricardo Montaner Sues UMG, Alleging Music Catalog Ownership Claims and Interference With Distribution Rights

Latin singer Ricardo Montaner has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group over rights to his music catalog, alleging that the label company is making what he describes as wrongful claims of ownership and interfering with his ability to move forward with a separate distribution deal.

Billboard reported on June 30, 2026 that Montaner’s complaint centers on alleged disputes over catalog control and the consequences of his termination rights. Montaner’s case, as described by Billboard, asserts that UMG is refusing to honor those termination rights after they were exercised.

In the reporting, Montaner is also described as alleging that UMG is interfering with a new distribution arrangement connected to an indie deal. The suit claims that, beyond rejecting the termination-rights framework, UMG’s conduct is affecting the structure and rollout of a separate distribution plan.

Billboard’s account frames the dispute around ownership claims over the underlying catalog, with Montaner characterizing UMG’s position as “wrongful claims of ownership.” That dispute, as presented in the report, is a key driver of the litigation and the requested remedies in the case.

The lawsuit comes at a time when catalog rights and the legal mechanics of terminations, transfers, and licensing have become central issues across the music industry. Montaner’s complaint, as described, highlights how ownership characterizations can affect not only who controls earnings, but also who can authorize downstream distribution relationships.

UMG is named as the defendant in the suit, and the allegations focus on both refusal to recognize termination rights and interference with Montaner’s efforts to implement an indie distribution arrangement. The suit’s practical effect, if the allegations are proven, would be a re-routing of decision-making authority over the catalog and related commercial transactions.

Because the underlying court filings were not provided in the available reporting, details such as the specific court, the filing date in that venue, and the precise legal causes of action were not confirmed in the Billboard report summary. The next step in the matter will be proceedings in the court that received the case, including any response from UMG and determinations on whether Montaner’s termination-rights and interference claims can be granted.

The case also underscores the business stakes for artists seeking to regain control of their works. If Montaner’s allegations are upheld, the dispute could affect not only catalog ownership questions, but also the viability and timing of new distribution structures tied to an artist’s asserted rights.