Spotify denies Drake’s allegations of using bots to boost Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’

Spotify has officially responded to Drake’s legal petition, denying claims that the streaming service used bots and payola to artificially boost the streaming numbers of Kendrick Lamar’s track “Not Like Us.” The company strongly rejects these allegations and has criticized Drake for his legal strategy, labeling his actions as speculative and unsupported. In its latest legal filing, Spotify addresses Drake’s accusations, reaffirming its commitment to fair streaming practices and calling for a rejection of his claims.

Spotify Rejects Claims of Artificial Streaming for Kendrick Lamar’s Song

In Drake’s legal petition, filed last month, he accuses Spotify of manipulating streaming numbers through bots and Payola to inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” However, Spotify’s legal team has emphatically denied these allegations, stating that neither Spotify nor Universal Music Group (UMG) has ever engaged in such practices. According to a motion filed in Manhattan court, Spotify referred to Drake’s claims as “far-fetched” and “speculative,” asserting that there is no factual basis to support the accusations.

Additionally, Spotify criticized Drake for filing a legal petition instead of a full lawsuit, arguing that his request for discovery was premature and aimed at passing the normal legal process. The motion emphasized that Drake’s allegations were unlikely to stand up in court, with Spotify contending that they lacked sufficient evidence to proceed.

Drake’s Allegations Found to Be Unsupported and Speculative

Spotify’s legal response focused on the lack of concrete evidence in Drake’s petition. The motion highlighted that the petition, which includes references to RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) violations, failed to present any specific facts to support the claims. Instead, it relied on vague assertions and anonymous sources, which Spotify described as speculative.

Spotify further pointed out that RICO cases are difficult to prove and that Drake’s petition lacked any verifiable proof of wrongdoing. The streaming service also reiterated statements made by UMG, which previously asserted that “no amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments” could obscure the fact that music choices are made by fans, not through manipulated streaming practices.

Spotify’s Commitment to Combat Artificial Streaming Practices

In a sworn affidavit, David Kaefer, Spotify’s VP of Music, emphasized the company’s dedication to fighting artificial streaming. He outlined how Spotify invests in technologies and processes to detect and prevent fraudulent activity, including removing suspicious streams, withholding royalties, and penalizing offending accounts. Spotify takes a strong stance against streaming manipulation to ensure fair compensation for artists and protect the integrity of the platform.

Kaefer stressed that when Spotify identifies artificial streams, these are not only removed from charts but also excluded from royalty payouts. This policy helps to preserve the fairness of the platform, ensuring that only legitimate streams contribute to chart rankings and artist earnings.

Drake’s Legal Team Responds to Spotify’s Denial

In response to Spotify’s motion, Drake’s legal team expressed their dissatisfaction, arguing that Spotify and UMG are trying to distance themselves from the alleged manipulation of streaming numbers. Drake’s attorneys suggested that if Spotify and UMG truly have nothing to hide, they would not hesitate to comply with the discovery request. They continue to push for further investigation into the matter, signaling that this legal battle is far from over.

Conclusion

As the legal dispute between Spotify and Drake continues, it underscores the complex issues surrounding streaming practices and artist compensation in the modern music industry. Spotify remains committed to ensuring fair play and transparency, but Drake and his team are determined to pursue their claims. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how the music industry handles accusations of artificial manipulation and unfair business practices in the digital age.