More and more people are accusing Spotify of artificially inflating their listeners. There is no way to check the numbers.
The doubts about the listening figures that Spotify handles They have always been there, but they have increased in recent times, when the possibility has been put on the table that some of their most listened to artists are actually the result of bot farms. At the moment there is nothing firm on the table, but we do have something indisputable: between this and the artists fleeing in a pack Spotify is going through one of the biggest reputational crises in its history. The demand. In early November 2025, rapper RBX, Snoop Dogg’s cousin, filed a class-action lawsuit against Spotify in California that has opened an uncomfortable debate for the music industry. streaming. According to the court document, between January 2022 and September 2025 an unspecified but “substantial” amount of the almost 37 billion views accumulated by Drake on the platform they would have been generated by botsautomated accounts (who listen to Drake 23 hours a day, something implausible) and traffic from, for example, Türkiye, masked with a VPN. Drake is not to blame. The Canadian artist not listed as accused (the lawsuit points exclusively to Spotify), but it appears to be an indirect beneficiary of this ecosystem where supervision is, to put it mildly, very relaxed. What is relevant is not whether Drake knew about these anomalies or not, but rather an issue that, if revealed as true, would reach the level of structural embezzlement: transparency about listening on Spotify is practically zero. How Spotify (doesn’t) work. The main problem with Spotify’s system lies in the opacity that surrounds its systems to detect fraud. The company has never publicly explained the exact thresholds that trigger its alarms, nor the criteria that distinguish an organic spike in activity from artificial manipulation. This lack of transparency generates detailed situations in this article: while emerging artists see their income blocked by a few thousand reproductions considered suspicious, statistical anomalies of colossal dimensions can persist for years. A lot of fraud. An analysis held in France in 2023 estimated that between 1% and 3% of all streams in the country were fraudulent. If these percentages were extrapolated globally, the losses would exceed $510 million. But Beatdapp, a company specialized in detecting fraud in streaming, dramatically raised that estimate in 2024: at least 10% of all reproductions would be artificial, which implies annual losses of between 2,000 and 3,000 million dollars. Other cases. These demands are not born in a vacuum. During 2024 and 2025, several cases have confirmed that the manipulation of streams and opaque commercial influence are common problems at Spotify. For example, in 2025, the Turkish Competition Authority opened a formal investigation against Spotify for alleged anti-competitive practices. The trigger was allegations from several top Turkish artists that certain performers were getting disproportionate visibility in exchange for direct payments to Spotify editors, all combined with the use of bots to artificially inflate national chart positions. Spotify has launched an internal investigation in what is the first case of editorial corruption reported by relevant artists. On the other hand, in September 2024, a 52-year-old musician living in North Carolina was accused of artificial inflation of streams through AI. Specifically, up to $10 million in fraudulent royalties through hundreds of thousands of songs created with AI that it played with up to 10,000 bot accounts. Smith strategically dispersed the fake wiretaps among tens of thousands of topics to prevent any of them from accumulating suspicious numbers. Spotify admits the fraud operated for years undetected. Header | Amber on Flickr / Alexander Shatov in Unsplash