Rapper RBX has sued Spotify in a class-action complaint, claiming that the site permitted fraudulent bot-generated streams that purportedly increased listening numbers for popular artists like Drake and hurt lesser musicians by diluting streaming earnings. According to the complaint, Spotify failed to prevent artificial streaming on its service, which led to a legal dispute over what RBX alleges is a pervasive issue in the industry that affects royalties.RBX, whose actual name is Eric Dwayne Collins, filed the complaint in federal court in U.S. District Court in L.A. California. RBX is most recognized for his early contributions to Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle and Dr. Dre's The Chronic. The artist who is Snoop Dogg's cousin has released solo albums and has collaborated on songs with artists like Eminem and Kris Kross.RBX is seeking class-action status on behalf of rights holders who get payment based on stream share, that is, money is split depending on the percentage of total streams each artist receives.The lawsuit claims that automated software, VPN masking, and bot networks were used to falsify listening stats and that "billions" of fraudulent streams occur every month. Meanwhile, Drake, who is mentioned in the lawsuit, is not a defendant and has not been charged with direct involvement.The lawsuit cites internal data and analysis, and the complaint asserts that networks of automated accounts accounted for a "substantial, non-trivial percentage" of Drake's approximately 37 billion Spotify streams. According to one case, at least 250,000 plays of Drake's song "No Face" over the course of four days in 2024 seemed to come from Turkey, but they were really routed through VPNs to look like they came from the UK. The complaint also claims that accounts are streaming Drake "23 hours a day," indicating the involvement of bots, and that there are unusual increases in plays long after the song's debut, as well as extremely sluggish drop patterns in streaming figures.The lawsuit claims that less than 2% of users were responsible for around 15% of Drake's streaming, with less than 1% of accounts accounting for about 9% of all streams. The petition contends that these trends led to Drake's music earning larger totals than peers, even though others had more listeners.Spotify respondsThe streaming giants respond to the charges against them, strongly denying that they profit from fake streams, but declined to go into detail about the ongoing lawsuit. In its public response, the streaming giants stated that they make significant technological investments to keep an eye on and stop fake streams. When any manipulation is found, it takes steps, including deleting illegal streams, withholding royalties, and imposing penalties.The statement read:“We cannot comment on pending litigation. However, Spotify in no way benefits from the industry-wide challenge of artificial streaming. We heavily invest in always-improving, best-in-class systems to combat it and safeguard artist payouts with strong protections like removing fake streams, withholding royalties, and charging penalties.”The statement added:“Our systems are working: In a case from last year, one bad actor was indicted for stealing $10,000,000 from streaming services, only $60,000 of which came from Spotify, proving how effective we are at limiting the impact of artificial streaming on our platform.”As proof of its detection systems, Spotify cited a previous instance in which a fraudulent operation earned $10 million across platforms, with $60,000 attributable to Spotify. Additionally, the streaming giants recently eliminated tens of millions of unapproved AI-generated songs and stressed that the industry as a whole continues to prioritize the fight against artificial streaming. The lawsuit highlights ongoing concerns about the fairness of the current stream-share model, which critics claim unfairly benefits large labels and artists. According to industry estimates stated in reports, fake streams may be responsible for billions of dollars' worth of lost royalties annually. Similar problems, such as those in Denmark, Brazil, and Turkey, have also been looked at by international authorities. The plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Pifko, argues that the lawsuit aims to increase streaming platform transparency and compensate the harmed artists:"Artists across the streaming industry need accurate reporting of streams and effective fraud detection to ensure fair compensation. When streams are artificially inflated on a large scale – as my client’s lawsuit alleges has happened with respect to streams of Drake’s music – it affects the income of countless songwriters, performers, and producers.”He added:“The lawsuit seeks to address these broader issues, recoup losses for affected musicians, and make the streaming ecosystem as fair and transparent as possible for everyone involved.”Stay tuned to Soap Central for more information.