Judge Rejects Part of Streaming-Fraud Case Accusing Spotify of Ignoring Fake-Play Schemes Tied to Drake

A judge dismissed key claims in a lawsuit that alleged Spotify violated the law by “turning a blind eye” to bot-fueled fake streams attributed to major recording artists, including rapper Drake, according to a report published June 22 by Billboard.

The complaint asserted that fake or fraudulent streaming activity produced billions of plays for Drake, and that Spotify’s platform-level practices enabled the alleged scheme. The filing alleged the company’s conduct crossed legal lines by failing to prevent or adequately address manipulation of streaming metrics that drive industry revenue and reputation.

In the court ruling discussed by Billboard, the judge rejected the accusation that Spotify broke the law through inaction. The decision, as described in the report, concluded that the claims did not meet the legal standard needed to proceed on the theories at issue, even while the dispute continues.

While the ruling trimmed parts of the case, Billboard reported that the litigation is “not quite over yet.” That means other claims or next-stage proceedings remain possible, depending on how the parties respond to the dismissal and what remains pending before the court.

The case lands in a broader fight over how streaming platforms count plays, how artists and labels are paid, and what safeguards are required to prevent manipulation that can distort chart performance and commercial outcomes. In such disputes, courts often focus on the specific elements of alleged wrongdoing, including what a defendant knew, what it did with that knowledge, and what duties apply under the relevant legal theory.

For Spotify, the ruling represents a partial victory in a high-visibility dispute that has drawn attention from the music industry and listeners concerned about whether streaming counts can be gamed by automated or fraudulent activity. For plaintiffs, the dismissal requires adjustment, such as narrowing claims, repleading, or pursuing the remaining issues that were not eliminated by the judge’s decision.

The next steps, as reflected in the reporting, will depend on what claims remain in the case and whether Spotify and the plaintiffs pursue further motions or appeals. Until the matter is resolved in full, the question of how streaming services must police fraudulent streams will remain subject to ongoing legal review.