In a major setback for the “First Ladies of Hip-Hop,” Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit to recover their iconic master recordings from Universal Music Group (UMG) was rejected by a federal judge.
The ruling is a significant turning point in a protracted dispute that resulted in the group’s music being removed from streaming sites and ignited a contentious discussion about artist equity and legacy in the digital era.
On January 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York granted UMG’s request to have the lawsuit brought by Sandra “Pepa” Denton and Cheryl “Salt” James dismissed.
The main focus of the decision was whether the two had ever owned the copyrights they were attempting to reclaim, which is a basic ownership question. The Copyright Act’s Section 203 grants artists the ability to end a copyright transfer after 35 years; this clause is commonly referred to as “termination rights.”
Judge Cote, however, decided that Salt-N-Pepa was unable to “terminate” a transfer that they never made.
According to Judge Cote’s opinion, which Yahoo Entertainment was able to get, “the statutory text in § 203 is clear: Plaintiffs can only terminate copyright transfers that they executed.” “The Plaintiffs have not found any contracts that show they ever owned the Master Tapes.”
The dispute highlights a long-standing animosity between big labels and artists. The court essentially agreed with UMG’s argument that the 1986 agreements regulating songs like “Push It” and “I’ll Take Your Man” were set up such that Hurby “Luv Bug” Azor, the group’s original producer, and his firm (NITA) were the exclusive proprietors from the beginning.
Instead of being independent artists who owned and then sold their artwork, Salt and Pepa were considered “works for hire” under this legal system. They lack the legal means to “reclaim” the masters forty years after they were not theirs in 1986.
Many admirers believe that the group’s cultural influence has been betrayed by the complexities of copyright law. In addition to recording songs, Salt-N-Pepa became the first female rap group to achieve platinum status and win a Grammy, shattering the glass ceiling for women in hip-hop.
We lacked that kind of leverage. We were unaware of that. In 2025, Cheryl James told Good Morning America, “We didn’t have that control in the ’80s.” Therefore, it’s absurd to be held to a 1985 contract forty years later.
When Salt-N-Pepa’s early catalog—which included the 1986 debut Hot, Cool & Vicious—started to vanish from popular streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music in the middle of 2024, the legal dispute took a very public turn.
The action was described by the pair’s legal team as a “heavy-handed tactic” intended to “punish” the artists for pursuing their rights. The withdrawal, according to UMG, was a necessary outcome of the legal battle about who really had the authority to license the song.
When the group was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in November 2025, the lack of these songs became a major cause of contention. James addressed the “blackout” of their music from the platform as he accepted the Musical Influence Award.
“As we celebrate this moment, fans can’t even stream our music,” she told the gathering. Because the industry still refuses to play fairly, it has been removed from all streaming platforms. A battle has never scared Salt-N-Pepa.
More than just a contract dispute, this case is a part of a larger industry reckoning involving legendary musicians like Snoop Dogg, Taylor Swift, and Anita Baker, all of whom have openly battled for control of their masters.
Many musicians, especially young Black performers in the emerging hip-hop movement, signed contracts in the 1980s that offered short-term entrée into the business at the expense of long-term ownership. The “worth” of these recordings has increased dramatically as the value of these catalogues has increased due to streaming, movies, and sync partnerships.
On GMA, Sandra Denton mentioned this financial fact, stating of UMG: “Clearly, it’s something.” They wish to retain it. They want to hang onto it because they know how valuable it is.
This lawsuit’s dismissal is a warning to the upcoming generation of artists. It emphasises that the “termination right,” although an effective instrument for artists, is only as strong as the initial agreement. The 35-year clock never starts to run for an artist if, in the eyes of the law, they were never the “author” of the recording.
UMG has indicated that it is prepared to return to the bargaining table in spite of the court’s “complete rejection” of the claims.
A UMG representative stated in a statement after the decision: “Although we are pleased that the court dismissed this irrational action… In order to concentrate our efforts on cooperating to strengthen Salt-N-Pepa’s legacy for future generations, we are still open to finding a solution and moving on.
However, the group’s solicitors have already stated that they are not finished. They told the Associated Press that they were disappointed and that they had a “full intention to pursue our rights on appeal.”
“Push It” is still a work in progress.
Everything you need to know about Salt-N-Pepa’s battle for their owners is provided here:
Judge Denise Cote dismissed Salt-N-Pepa’s action against UMG on January 8, 2026, stating that the group could not “reclaim” the copyrights under Section 203 of the Copyright Act because they had never owned them.
The Streaming Situation: In 2024, because to the legal issue, popular songs like “Push It,” “Shoop,” and “Let’s Talk About Sex” were taken down from major U.S. streaming services. On many services, they are still mostly unavailable in their original form.
The “Work for Hire” Argument: UMG was able to prove that producer Hurby Azor’s company controlled the recordings from the beginning, hence the artists were never the rightful proprietors of the masters.
The Rock Hall Moment: The trio publicly criticised the music industry for “not playing fair” with relation to their catalogue during their 2025 induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
The Next Step: UMG says they are open to a “amicable resolution” to release the music to fans, while Salt-N-Pepa’s legal team has declared they want to appeal the ruling.
DJ Spinderella’s Role: Deidra “Spinderella” Roper is not a plaintiff in this particular litigation and was not a party to the original 1986 agreement in question.
