Skip to main content

Find a Qualified Attorney Near You

Find a Qualified Attorney Near You

Search by legal issue and/or location

Enter information in one or both fields. (Required)

Rapper’s Lawsuit Accuses Spotify of Letting Bots Inflate Drake’s Streaming Numbers

Kit Yona, M.A.

Article by: Kit Yona, M.A.

Legal Writer

Reviewed by Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Last updated on

Poor Drake. Even when something ostensibly isn’t his fault, it seems like he gets dragged for it anyway. Such is the case with a proposed class action lawsuit filed in a California district court against online music service Spotify by the rapper RBX, also known as Erick Dwayne Collins, on November 2, 2025. While Spotify is the only defendant named in the suit, RBX names Drake’s streams as a beneficiary of fake streams committed by bot accounts and other illegal methods.

The lawsuit accuses Spotify of turning a blind eye to streaming fraud that benefits the top artists unfairly and causes massive financial harm to other musicians. It seeks approval to become a class action suit and damages of over $5 million. While not commenting directly about the legal filing, a spokesperson from Spotify claimed that the streaming service is at the forefront of preventing the fraudulent streaming that plagues the online music industry.

Caught in the middle of all this is Drake. His defamation suit against Universal Music Group (UMG), which included claims of artificial streaming by the record label during his feud with Kendrick Lamar, was dismissed in October. In addition to licking his wounds from the fallout of the “Not Like Us” diss track fiasco, the megastar now finds himself having the streaming performance of his music questioned. Will he be able to laugh now, cry later?

Watch Out for the Deep End of That Pool

When it comes to online music streaming platforms, Spotify stands far and away as the biggest and most successful. With almost 700 million worldwide subscribers, its customer base dwarfs that of Apple Music, its nearest competitor. While the streaming service offers access to millions of songs and playlists, artists and music rightsholders have long railed against the system as unsustainable for musicians and the industry as a whole.

To determine payouts, Spotify uses a streamshare model. All revenue from subscriptions and advertising is put into a single pool. Payments are determined by total streams, with those who have more streams receiving a higher amount. As the plaintiff in the proposed lawsuit, RBX alleges that Drake and his company, Frozen Moments, sit on top of this system due to Spotify’s negligence in stopping illegal streamers, such as bots or accounts created to do nothing but play Drake’s music 23 hours a day.

His legal action claims this is possible due to Spotify’s ad-based subscriptions being free and not requiring a credit card for account registrations. This allows the stream counts of Drake’s songs to be artificially inflated, thus giving him an unfair and illegal advantage over other musicians. RBX, who has worked with hip-hop legends such as Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre, asserts that his data reveals irregularities in Drake’s music popularity, the use of VPNs to conceal locations, and a lack of population support in areas with high streaming rates.

It’s a Long Way to the Top if You Wanna Rock and Roll (or Rap, Croon, Etc.)

RBX’s lawsuit doesn’t reveal the source of its data, which will likely come under scrutiny if the suit makes it to the discovery phase. The suit points out that streaming fraud also adds to the overall number of streams, which enables Spotify to charge higher advertising rates regardless of who receives them. Spotify continues to affirm its ongoing battle against artificial streaming and manipulation of the sharestream pool, citing a case in which a fraudster who raised over $10 million through illegal streaming received only $60,000 through Spotify due to its prevention measures.

Caught in the middle of all this is Drake, still reeling from the failure of his lawsuit and the loss of his beef with Lamar, with social media standing in as the judge. It seems amazing that someone with over 37 billion streams of his songs should have to answer questions about his actual popularity, but welcome to the fickle court of public opinion.

Was this helpful?

Copied to clipboard