Spotify’s role in Drake’s payola accusations reveals streaming’s unchecked power over artists.
Drake’s recent claims against Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG) have brought payola back into the music industry spotlight. At the heart of the drama? Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us—a diss track Drake says got a little “help” in going viral.
The feud between these two rap heavyweights makes for great headlines, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the way streaming platforms and labels may be pulling strings behind the scenes to decide what music gets heard.
Drake. (From: Britannica)
Drake has taken his feud with UMG and Spotify to court, filing two legal petitions that accuse the two powerhouses of stacking the deck for Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us. His claims paint a picture of a pay-to-play scheme that includes:
Kendrick Lamar. (From: Kendrick Lamar/YouTube)
According to Drake’s team, these moves turned Not Like Us into a juggernaut, racking up over 900 million streamson Spotify and conquering the Billboard charts. He argues this success came at the expense of other artists—himself included.
In one filing, his lawyers wrote, “Every time a song ‘breaks through,’ it means another artist does not. UMG’s choice to saturate the music market with Not Like Us comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake.”
UMG, unsurprisingly, denies it all, calling the allegations “offensive and untrue.” As for Spotify? They’re keeping quiet—for now.
Back in the day, payola meant record labels slipping cash to radio stations to ensure their songs dominated the airwaves. DJ Funkmaster Flex claims it’s still alive and well, with top radio slots allegedly costing as much as $350,000.
Fast forward to the streaming era, and payola has gone digital. Now, it’s all about bots inflating streams, algorithm tweaks, and behind-the-scenes deals with platforms like Spotify to push specific tracks.
Drake isn’t having it. He argues Spotify’s financial agreements and algorithm changes unfairly boost some songs while leaving others in the dust. According to him, this doesn’t just mess with neutrality—it rigs the game entirely.
Spotify, for its part, insists it has “automated and manual reviews to prevent, detect, and reduce artificial streaming.”
That sounds good on paper, but they’ve stayed silent when it comes to Drake’s specific claims.
As Spotify’s largest label partner, UMG holds plenty of sway over how music gets promoted. Back in 2017, just before Spotify’s IPO, UMG reportedly locked in a dealthat guaranteed strong promotion for its artists. On top of that, Spotify lets labels like UMG influence playlist placements and recommendations—basically giving their artists a spotlight.
And who’s on UMG’s star-studded roster? Oh, just megastars like Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Kendrick Lamar. Naturally, these big names don’t just rake in streams—they also pull in subscribers and drive revenue for Spotify. It’s a win-win for both parties, as UMG’s tracks dominate Spotify’s most-followed playlists, like Today’s Top Hits.
However, this collaboration often comes at the expense of other artists. Drake claims UMG leaned on its Spotify connection to boost Not Like Us while sidelining others. Here’s the breakdown of his allegations:
For independent artists, these practices make an already tough industry even tougher. Corporate-backed campaigns and label deals crowd out smaller acts, leaving them little space to grow. The result?
Drake’s recent claims against Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG) have brought payola back into the music industry spotlight. At the heart of the drama? Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us—a diss track Drake says got a little “help” in going viral.
The feud between these two rap heavyweights makes for great headlines, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the way streaming platforms and labels may be pulling strings behind the scenes to decide what music gets heard.
The Accusations That Rocked Hip-Hop
Drake has taken his feud with UMG and Spotify to court, filing two legal petitions that accuse the two powerhouses of stacking the deck for Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us. His claims paint a picture of a pay-to-play scheme that includes:
- Bot-generated streamsto artificially inflate the track’s numbers.
- Algorithmic favoritism, with Spotify nudging Not Like Us to the top of users’ recommendations.
- Discounted licensing fees, where UMG allegedly sweetened the deal with Spotify to give Lamar’s track extra love.
According to Drake’s team, these moves turned Not Like Us into a juggernaut, racking up over 900 million streamson Spotify and conquering the Billboard charts. He argues this success came at the expense of other artists—himself included.
In one filing, his lawyers wrote, “Every time a song ‘breaks through,’ it means another artist does not. UMG’s choice to saturate the music market with Not Like Us comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake.”
UMG, unsurprisingly, denies it all, calling the allegations “offensive and untrue.” As for Spotify? They’re keeping quiet—for now.
Payola in the Streaming Era
Drake’s accusations shine a light on payola, the controversial practice of paying for unfair promotion.Back in the day, payola meant record labels slipping cash to radio stations to ensure their songs dominated the airwaves. DJ Funkmaster Flex claims it’s still alive and well, with top radio slots allegedly costing as much as $350,000.
Fast forward to the streaming era, and payola has gone digital. Now, it’s all about bots inflating streams, algorithm tweaks, and behind-the-scenes deals with platforms like Spotify to push specific tracks.
Drake isn’t having it. He argues Spotify’s financial agreements and algorithm changes unfairly boost some songs while leaving others in the dust. According to him, this doesn’t just mess with neutrality—it rigs the game entirely.
Spotify, for its part, insists it has “automated and manual reviews to prevent, detect, and reduce artificial streaming.”
That sounds good on paper, but they’ve stayed silent when it comes to Drake’s specific claims.
The Business of Favoritism
Drake’s filings shed light on a cozy UMG-Spotify relationship that seems to blur the line between fair promotion and outright manipulation.As Spotify’s largest label partner, UMG holds plenty of sway over how music gets promoted. Back in 2017, just before Spotify’s IPO, UMG reportedly locked in a dealthat guaranteed strong promotion for its artists. On top of that, Spotify lets labels like UMG influence playlist placements and recommendations—basically giving their artists a spotlight.
And who’s on UMG’s star-studded roster? Oh, just megastars like Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Kendrick Lamar. Naturally, these big names don’t just rake in streams—they also pull in subscribers and drive revenue for Spotify. It’s a win-win for both parties, as UMG’s tracks dominate Spotify’s most-followed playlists, like Today’s Top Hits.
However, this collaboration often comes at the expense of other artists. Drake claims UMG leaned on its Spotify connection to boost Not Like Us while sidelining others. Here’s the breakdown of his allegations:
- Licensing discounts:UMG allegedly offered Spotify a deal on fees to prioritize Lamar’s track.
- Playlist domination: Not Like Us was plastered all over high-profile playlists, guaranteeing massive exposure.
- Retaliation: UMG supposedly fired employees seen as loyal to Drake—profits over fairness, according to his filings.
Similar Cases of Streaming Manipulation and Its Implications
Drake’s accusations are just the latest in a long history of streaming controversies—and surprise, surprise, Spotify often finds itself in the spotlight. Here are some notable examples:- The “Fake Artists” Controversy (2016–2017):Spotify faced claims it was stacking playlists with tracks by fake artists to dodge paying higher royalties. Imagine discovering your favorite “artist” doesn’t actually exist. Spotify denied it, but the controversy stuck.
- French Montana (2021):The rapper was accused of using bots to inflate streams for Writing on the Wall. The track’s visibility soared—until Spotify caught on and cleaned house.
- Danish Streaming Fraud (2024): A Danish man earned himself an 18-month prison sentence after creating fake accounts to rack up $290,000 in royalties.
- North Carolina AI Music Fraud (2024): A musician reportedly uploaded thousands of AI-generated songs, then used bots to stream them, bagging over $10 million in fraudulent royalties.
For independent artists, these practices make an already tough industry even tougher. Corporate-backed campaigns and label deals crowd out smaller acts, leaving them little space to grow. The result?
- Fewer opportunities
- for independent or emerging artists.
- Inflated metrics that mislead listeners about what’s genuinely popular.
- A lack of transparencyaround how playlists and algorithms actually work.
