Walker invoked California's seven-year statute to terminate her contract with Interscope. UMG has now responded with a lawsuit.
Summer Walker attends the 2025 MTV Video Music Awards at UBS Arena on September 07, 2025 in Elmont, New York. Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images
Summer Walker and Universal Music Group (UMG) are in a legal dispute over the status of her deal with Interscope Records.
Walker, who signed a joint deal with Interscope and label/management company LVRN in 2017, sent a notice of termination to Interscope parent UMG in August. The music giant responded on Friday (Oct. 9) by submitting a lawsuit, obtained and first reported by Billboard, alleging that if Walker does indeed break their deal, she’d owe $50 million for not yet delivering all her promised albums.
The singer-songwriter is invoking California’s “seven-year statute,” a 1944 state law that allows an individual to exit a personal services contract after that amount of time. The statute was amended in 1987 to allow record labels to sue artists for damages if they leave after seven years but before fulfilling all their album commitments.
Under that law, labels only have 45 days to bring such lawsuits in response to contract termination notices. UMG’s Friday complaint, brought at the tail-end of that period, alleges Walker has only delivered three projects from her contract’s five-album commitment: her 2019 debut Over It, which hit No. 2 on the Billboard 200, the 2021 chart-topper Still Over It and another No. 2 set, Finally Over It, in 2025.
A spokesperson for Interscope told Billboard in a statement Friday, “While we remain hopeful that our ongoing discussions will lead to an amicable resolution, the statutory deadline makes it necessary to file suit in order to preserve the terms of our contract. We have great respect for Summer and her music and would welcome the opportunity to continue our successful partnership.”
Walker’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment on the matter.
Labels have in the past used these types of damages lawsuits to respond when artists seek to terminate their record deals under the seven-year statute. Warner Bros. Records did so amid a dispute with heavy metal band Avenged Sevenfold in 2016, as did MCA with R&B groups New Edition and Bell Biv DeVoe back in the 1990s.
There have been numerous unsuccessful efforts in the California legislature to repeal the 1987 amendment that allows labels to bring such lawsuits, with artist advocates arguing that the possibility of hefty damages unfairly dissuades artists from invoking the seven-year statute to get out of their record deals. The record industry maintains that this provision protects labels’ contractual rights and stabilizes dealmaking.
