The Australian Recording Industry Association has updated its Charts Code of Practice to exclude wholly AI-generated recordings, effective with the chart dated Monday, August 31, 2026, published Friday, August 284,7. Recordings that use generative AI in a supporting role remain eligible, provided they are "substantially human made" and raise no stream or chart manipulation concerns2.
The policy change follows a controversy over Queensland DJ Josh Fawaz's cover of Madonna's 1989 hit Like a Prayer, which used generative AI for vocals and drums according to its Spotify credits3. The track began topping ARIA's dance singles chart in May, peaked at No. 2 on the overall chart, spent 16 weeks in the top 10, and as of August 24 sat at No. 4. It became the most-played song on Australian radio in July6 and has been streamed more than 48 million times on Spotify alone. Fawaz added generative AI credits to the song after a backlash.
ARIA CEO Annabelle Herd said artists already use AI tools in their work and the charts "can and should evolve to keep room for that," but that music "generated wholesale by services built on artists' recordings is a different matter". Herd added that ARIA was "not interested in promoting or celebrating the success of AI-generated music that does not contain human artistry". She also said ARIA does not want to celebrate tracks "recorded using AI tools that have stolen music to train their AI systems".
Under the new framework, ARIA has defined three categories: AI-generated (not eligible), AI-assisted (eligible if substantially human-made), and AI in production (eligible). Humans must have written the song and performed the lead vocal and primary instruments for a recording to qualify. AI can still be used for mastering, drum machines, and auto-tune.
The updated code gives ARIA enforcement powers: it may remove ineligible recordings, retrospectively adjust chart positions, withdraw accreditations, and revoke or request the return of ARIA #1 Awards. Artists and their representatives can contest an exclusion through an updated disputes process. An ineligible recording will also not be eligible for an ARIA Award.
ARIA said it implemented the changes in line with global principles published on July 10 by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, and that it worked closely with IFPI and other international industry bodies. More than 20 official chart programs globally were adopting rules to distinguish human-created recordings from wholly AI-generated material. Earlier this year, a song was banned from Sweden's music charts for being AI-created.
James Steendam, federal president of musicians at the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance union, noted that the ARIA Charts Code of Practice is voluntary. He said the union is calling on the federal government to mandate labelling of AI-generated content across music and the creative sector. Steendam said artists and musicians currently have no share in licensing arrangements between record labels and AI companies and no right to refuse their work being used for AI training.
The track at the center of the controversy also exposed a regulatory gap in Australian radio: it appeared on commercial radio as an Australian song, helping stations fulfill obligations to promote 25 percent Australian music — without paying royalties. ARIA called on parties involved in deciding music played and promoted to Australian audiences, particularly radio, to support human artistry and implement similar changes across their own codes.
ANALYSIS The enforcement mechanism — retrospective chart adjustment and award revocation — gives the policy more weight than a simple eligibility screen, though its practical force is limited by the code's voluntary nature. The radio loophole, where AI-generated tracks can satisfy local-content quotas without triggering royalty payments, remains unaddressed by the chart rules alone.