Spotify has scored a major legal victory after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit involving Drake, billions of suspicious streams and allegations that recording artists lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Inside the Lawsuit
The case raised questions about how streaming platforms divide their money. It also put one of music’s biggest stars at the center of another controversy over streaming numbers.
On Oct. 23, U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by West Coast rapper RBX, whose real name is Eric Dwayne Collins. The rapper, who is Snoop Dogg’s cousin, accused Spotify of ignoring suspicious streaming activity. He claimed the practice diverted at least $600 million in royalties from legitimate music rights holders.
According to Music Business Worldwide, the judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. Collins cannot simply revise and refile the same claims in district court. However, his attorneys are considering an appeal.
The money was the biggest issue.
Spotify collects revenue from subscriptions and advertising. That money goes into royalty pools and is divided among rights holders based on their share of eligible streams.
Essentially, artists compete for a portion of the same money. If one artist’s numbers are artificially inflated, other musicians could receive smaller payments.
Collins claimed that a significant portion of Drake’s approximately 37 billion streams over four years appeared suspicious. Some accounts allegedly played his music for as long as 23 hours daily.
The complaint estimated that at least $600 million had been diverted from legitimate rights holders. That amount was never established as an actual loss. Drake was not named as a defendant.
As Complex reported, Staton rejected the allegations in a 16-page ruling. She found that Collins had not provided enough facts to support his claims against Spotify.
The ruling marked Spotify’s second victory in the dispute. The original complaint was dismissed in June. Collins submitted a revised version in July, but the judge remained unconvinced.
The case also highlighted the financial challenges facing smaller recording artists.
Since April 2024, Spotify has required songs to reach at least 1,000 streams annually before qualifying for recorded music royalties. Tracks must also meet a minimum number of unique listeners.
Collins argued that smaller musicians face strict requirements while major artists allegedly receive less scrutiny.
The judge found that he had not demonstrated unfair enforcement.
Spotify has maintained that it invests heavily in detecting fraudulent streams. The company says it removes fake plays, withholds royalties and penalizes manipulation.
Interestingly, Drake previously made similar accusations against the streaming giant.
In November 2024, his company, Frozen Moments LLC, accused Universal Music Group and Spotify of artificially boosting Kendrick Lamar’s hit diss track, “Not Like Us.”
The filing alleged that bots helped increase Lamar’s streams. It also claimed UMG offered Spotify licensing discounts of approximately 30 percent in exchange for promoting the record.
UMG denied the accusations. Spotify also disputed having a financial incentive to favor Lamar over Drake.
Drake later withdrew the petition. He subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against UMG over the song’s allegations and promotion.
That lawsuit was dismissed in October 2025. Drake appealed the decision, with oral arguments scheduled for December 4, 2026.
The situation created an unusual reversal. Drake previously questioned whether Lamar benefited from inflated streams. Now, another rapper has raised similar concerns about Drake’s catalog.
Neither set of streaming fraud allegations was proven in court.
Meanwhile, Collins’ attorney Mark Pifko told Rolling Stone, “We are reviewing the order, but an appeal is likely.”
For Spotify, the dismissal removes a major legal challenge involving an alleged $600 million in diverted royalties. However, the judge did not determine whether Drake’s streams were legitimate.
The ruling addressed the strength of Collins’ legal claims, not the accuracy of every stream.
For recording artists, the larger financial concern remains. Streaming numbers influence royalty payments, business opportunities and careers. With so much money at stake, questions about how those numbers are counted are unlikely to disappear.
Spotify differs from other music streaming services in how it calculates payments to artists. Rather than paying a fixed amount for every song played, Spotify pools revenue from subscriptions and advertising and distributes royalties based on each artist’s share of total streams on the platform. Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, and Tidal also use revenue-sharing systems, although their payment calculations and rates vary. SoundCloud connects an eligible artist’s earnings more directly to what their individual fans actually listen to.