Spotify Sued Over Alleged Stream Filtering Favoring Major Labels
A lawsuit filed by musician and lawyer Mark Kratter in Stamford Superior Court alleges Spotify uses undisclosed filtering practices to suppress stream counts for independent artists. Kratter claims a system redesign reduced his recorded streams despite steady listener activity, effectively redistributing visibility and royalties to major label catalogs.
Why is Spotify facing lawsuits over streaming transparency?
The legal action focuses on how Spotify counts—or fails to count—legitimate plays. According to the complaint, Spotify implemented a redesign of its streaming and recommendation system that prevents certain categories of legitimate listening from being registered as streams.
Kratter alleges these “filtering rules” target background algorithmic listening, low-interaction sessions, and Spotify Radio plays. When these aren’t counted, artists miss out on critical revenue. Spotify requires a track to exceed 1,000 annual streams to generate any recorded royalties, according to the filing.
The lawsuit claims this creates a “redistribution mechanism.” By filtering out independent plays, the platform allegedly prioritizes the discovery and placement of major label catalogs, which already benefit from high-volume editorial playlists.
How do these alleged filters impact independent musicians?
The impact is measurable in the data. Kratter points to his own streaming statistics as evidence. Before the alleged system change, his performance was stable, with CSV data showing streams proportional to listener activity. After the change, he reported a “strong and measurable” drop in counted streams despite continued listener engagement.
The complaint highlights several discrepancies in Spotify’s reporting:
- Listener counts exceeding counted streams.
- Track saves exceeding counted streams.
- Playlist additions exceeding counted streams.
- Algorithmic sessions recorded without matching stream counts.
Because these streams aren’t counted, artists lose more than just money. They lose “eligibility for algorithmic promotion,” which the lawsuit claims kills the discovery process for independent talent.
What’s the difference between this case and other Spotify disputes?
This case represents a shift in how artists are challenging the platform. While many disputes focus on the amount of the payout, Kratter is challenging the counting of the play itself. It’s a dispute over data integrity rather than just royalty rates.
This contrasts with a recent case involving RBX and fraudulent streaming related to Drake. In that instance, the focus was on “billions of fraudulent streams” inflating numbers. While the RBX complaint was dismissed without prejudice, it highlighted a different side of the same coin: the platform’s struggle to accurately distinguish between fake and legitimate activity.
Where the RBX case dealt with “over-counting” via bots, the Kratter suit alleges “under-counting” via hidden filters. Both point to a lack of transparency in how Spotify’s “black box” algorithm determines what constitutes a valid play.
What happens next for streaming royalties and algorithmic bias?
Kratter isn’t just asking for damages. He’s seeking a court order that would force Spotify to provide a “complete accounting” of all filtered streams, engagement signals, and discovery allocations affecting his catalog.
If the court grants this, it could set a precedent for “algorithmic auditing.” It would move the industry toward a model where DSPs must prove their recommendation engines aren’t unfairly biased toward major labels. Such a move would force a level of transparency that Spotify and other platforms have historically avoided.
Spotify hasn’t responded to requests for comment regarding the Kratter filing. However, the outcome will likely influence how future contracts are written between independent distributors and streaming services.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are “filtered streams”?
According to the lawsuit, these are legitimate plays—such as background listening or Radio sessions—that Spotify’s system chooses not to count toward an artist’s total streams or royalty payments.
Who is Mark Kratter?
Mark Kratter is a Norwalk-based musician and lawyer who filed the complaint in Stamford Superior Court alleging unfair commercial practices by Spotify.
Why does the 1,000-stream limit matter?
Because Spotify doesn’t pay royalties on tracks with under 1,000 annual streams, any “filtering” that drops an artist below this threshold completely eliminates their ability to earn money from those plays.
Do you think streaming platforms should be required to disclose their filtering algorithms? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more updates on the music industry’s legal battles.