Spotify has issued a rebuttal to Drake, US rapper both through a public statement and official legal filings denying the existence of any economic incentive for the platform to Favor Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” over Drake’s own music.
They clarified that the only promotional activity undertaken for the song on Spotify was a €500 purchase of Marquee, a Spotify for Artists tool used for targeted visual advertising in France. Spotify explicitly stated that Marquee ads are clearly disclosed to users as Sponsored Recommendations, ensuring transparency.
The ongoing dispute between Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify has escalated with Spotify officially firing back against allegations made by Drake that Kendrick Lamar’s hit track “Not Like Us” was artificially inflated on the streaming platform.
Drake, through his company Frozen Moments LLC, had previously accused UMG and Spotify of employing manipulative tactics, including the use of bots and undisclosed pay-for-play agreements, to boost the song’s streaming numbers and propel it to viral status.
Read also: Nigerian music consumption soars 146% in 2024 – Spotify
Drake’s accusations were initially presented in a legal petition filed in New York. The petition claimed that UMG orchestrated a campaign to saturate streaming services and radio airwaves with “Not Like Us,” specifically alleging the use of bots and pay-to-play agreements to artificially inflate the song’s popularity.
A key point of contention was the allegation that UMG offered Spotify a 30 percent reduction in licensing fees for “Not Like Us” in exchange for preferential treatment, such as prominent placement in user recommendations, even when users were searching for unrelated songs and artists. The petition further alleged a lack of transparency, claiming that neither UMG nor Spotify disclosed this alleged compensation arrangement.
UMG had previously responded to Drake’s allegations, dismissing them as “offensive and untrue.” The record label asserted its commitment to the highest ethical standards in its marketing and promotional campaigns, emphasizing that fan engagement and genuine listening habits are the driving forces behind a song’s success.
Spotify’s formal response included the filing of opposition papers, comprising an Opposition Brief and an affirmation in support of the brief. These documents, obtained by Music Business Worldwide (MBW), present Spotify’s legal counter-arguments. In the Opposition Brief, Spotify’s legal team argues for the complete dismissal of Drake’s petition.
A crucial component of Spotify’s defence is an affirmation provided by David Kaefer, VP, Head of Music and Audiobooks Business at Spotify USA. Kaefer directly addresses the core allegations made by Frozen Moments LLC. He explicitly denies any arrangement between UMG and Spotify involving a 30% reduction in licensing fees for “Not Like Us” in exchange for preferential recommendations. Kaefer’s affirmation firmly states that no such agreement ever existed, refuting Drake’s claim that Spotify was incentivized to promote the song through undisclosed financial arrangements.
Furthermore, Kaefer’s affirmation addresses a specific claim within Drake’s petition regarding a podcast report. The petition cited an unidentified individual who allegedly confessed to using bots to generate 30 million streams for “Not Like Us” within the first few days of its release. Spotify’s internal investigation, however, found no evidence to support this claim. Kaefer asserts that Spotify’s systems did not detect any unusual or artificial streaming activity that would corroborate the podcast report.
Spotify’s commitment to combating artificial streaming is also highlighted in Kaefer’s affirmation. He details the platform’s substantial investments in both automated and manual review processes designed to prevent, detect, and mitigate the impact of artificial streaming activity. These measures are in place to ensure the integrity of streaming data and to protect the interests of artists who rely on fair and accurate royalty payments.
Read also: NITDA warns Nigerians on cybersecurity risks linked to Spotify
Kaefer outlines the actions Spotify takes when instances of stream manipulation are identified. These actions can include removing inflated streaming numbers, withholding royalties earned through artificial means, and imposing penalty fees. Additionally, suspected and confirmed instances of artificial streams are excluded from Spotify’s chart calculations, further safeguarding the accuracy and fairness of the platform’s metrics.
The legal battle between Drake, UMG, and Spotify highlights the growing scrutiny surrounding streaming data and the methods used to promote music in the digital age. The allegations of artificial inflation raise important questions about transparency, fairness, and the integrity of the streaming ecosystem.
With Spotify’s official response and detailed refutation of the claims, the legal proceedings are set to continue, potentially shedding further light on the complexities of the music streaming industry and the ongoing debate surrounding fair play and accurate representation of listener engagement. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how streaming data is monitored, interpreted, and used within the music industry.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
