🎙️ Zoom Call With Andrew Sanchez: UDIO's CEO Transparency or Damage Control?

By Matthew St Onge – AIDIY.tech Opinion

Yesterday, Andrew Sanchez, co-founder and CEO of Udio, jumped on a live community Zoom call to talk about the Universal Music Group partnership and the sudden removal of downloads.

On the surface, he came across as calm and genuine. You could tell he didn’t enjoy being there to deliver bad news. He said things like:

“I hate having had to do this… I absolutely hate having to take this away right now.”

and

“We’re in the business of trying to give you amazing things.”

He painted a picture of a small startup doing its best to survive, framing the Universal deal as a way to “fight another day.”

“We think that in order to fight another day , to make new models and get you new functionality, which by the way, we hope includes downloads , we have to and want to work with the industry.”

It sounded honest enough, but the problem is that honesty came after the damage was already done.

What He Said , And What He Didn’t

Andrew tried to calm the community by denying rumors that Udio had sold out.

“We haven’t sold to them or to anybody. We don’t get paid for this.”

I don't know if he was addressing my claim that he "Sold Out". I think he misunderstands what I meant by selling out.

• Why was there no warning before downloads disappeared?

• Why are we still being charged under the old Terms of Service?

• How can you rewrite ownership rights overnight?
  

Those questions never made it on air. Instead, he responded to the gentler ones about the “future of artist partnerships.”

“As part of the partnership, there will be compensation going to artists who participate… from the use of their style and their voice.”

That’s fine if you’re Universal, but for paying users who just lost access to their songs, it felt disconnected from reality.

The Chat You Didn’t See

If you weren’t watching live, you missed the real conversation , the rolling wall of angry comments from users. People were hurt.

These weren’t hobbyists , these were musicians and producers who’d built projects around Udio’s promise that they owned their work.

And then, with no warning, that promise was gone. Don't be taken in by the gaslighting about how you can still use those old songs. How the "F" can you do that if you can no longer download those songs?

The Real Issue

Let’s call it what it is. Udio was still taking subscriptions right up until the day downloads were turned off.Their old Terms of Service said:

“The Company does not claim ownership in Your Content, including any Output generated by you.” “You may use your Output for both personal and commercial purposes, and you may download a copy of your Output that consists of an audio file.”

That’s what people paid for and Udio was taking money under those terms with no intention of fulfilling what they agreed to.

The new TOS says something very different:

“You may not download any copies of your Output from the App for any purpose.”“You agree not to reproduce, transmit, or distribute your Output on any personal device or platform.”

That’s a 180-degree shift in user rights.And to make it worse, they’d clearly been planning this change for weeks while still charging people under the old terms.

That’s bait-and-switch.

The Walled-Garden Future

It’s now obvious where Udio is heading , a fully contained, walled-garden, No downloads. No exports. No Spotify releases.

Everything stays inside their ecosystem, where they can control licensing and usage.That makes sense from a label’s perspective. But for creators, it’s a huge step backward.

Udio used to stand for freedom , creative ownership, and experimentation.

The Attempt at Reassurance

Andrew kept saying they’re working hard to bring downloads back.

“I’m doing absolutely everything I possibly can to get that available to you going forward.”

But there was no timeline, no plan, and no specifics.  It sounded like hope, not commitment.

He also promised updates on Reddit and Discord , which just happens to be where Udio can moderate the conversation.

Why It Fell Flat

This call wasn’t really about rebuilding trust. It was about damage control , and you could feel it.

He spoke like someone balancing legal advice with empathy, which is never a good combo in front of your own customers. You can’t talk your way out of a situation where people feel like their work has been taken away. The only path forward is brutal honesty, and that never showed up in the room.

What He’s Missing

If Andrew had started with a simple “We messed up, and here’s what we’re going to do to make it right,” people would have stayed with him. Instead, it felt like a founder trying to keep control of a narrative that was already gone. In reality, he probably gave up control around that.

At some point, startups have to realize that transparency isn’t optional.

What This Means for Creators

The real story here isn’t just about a lost download button.It’s about what happens when creative independence meets corporate licensing.

People are learning that if you pay for a creative AI tool, that doesn’t mean you own what comes out of it.You’re renting space on someone else’s servers, and they can change the locks whenever they want.

That’s the part that’s really sinking in , and it’s shaking confidence across the entire AI-music community.

My Final Thoughts

I don’t think Andrew Sanchez is a bad guy. He actually sounded sincere. But sincerity doesn’t fix a broken promise. He totally disregarded the time and love that people put into making music on Udio. Basically... "Yo, I had problems and I fixed them for myself. Fuck your feelings and the agreements we had." (not a real quote)

You can’t tell people they own their art and then take away the tools that let them access it.That’s not empowerment , that’s repossession.

Until Udio brings back legacy downloads or compensates users properly, this isn’t resolved. And it wouldn't be resolved anyway. People built up skills within this platform over time. This is a warning shot for every AI-music startup out there: