Blog

Cover Photo by David Pupăză on Unsplash

Spotify is, by almost any metric, the dominant force in music streaming. As of the third quarter of 2025, the platform reported around 713 million monthly active users and 281 million premium subscribers, figures that continue to grow year on year at roughly 11–12%. Its annual revenue rose by around 18% in 2024, and in 2025 the company announced that it had paid out more than $10 billion in royalties to rights holders, which is more than any other streaming service. 

 

But despite this success, 2025 has seen a noticeable wave of musicians publicly distancing themselves from the platform. In this article, we'll explore this disconnect, and highlight the multiple reasons cited by different artist for leaving the platform behind. We're not taking any sides, but we want to put the reasons on the table for all musicians and producers to judge for themselves.

 

 

A New Wave of Boycotts

 

Throughout 2025, several artists announced that they were removing their catalogues from Spotify altogether. Unlike previous high-profile departures, these moves largely came from independent musicians rather than global superstars. This recent video from Dub FX – the artist behind the Vocal Beats, Bass and FX sample pack – explains his reasoning below.

 

 

In February 2025, Chad VanGaalen, the Canadian indie, folk, and electronic artist, was amongst the many artists to announce a decision to pull their music from Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music. He wrote bluntly, “I have asked for [my music’s] removal because Spotify/Apple/Amazon are mediocre lazy demon level weirdos.” VanGaalen’s music remains available on Bandcamp, Tidal, and Apple Music.

 

 

Elsewhere, other independent, folk and experimental acts followed suit, such as Deehoof and Kadhja Bonet, often citing ethical objections rather than commercial calculations. While these removals barely register in Spotify’s vast catalogue, they signal a growing cultural unease, particularly among musicians for whom streaming income already represents a marginal revenue stream.

 

 

Older Boycotts

 

This is not the first time artists have walked away from Spotify. In 2022, Neil Young removed his music from the platform in protest of Spotify’s exclusive deal with The Joe Rogan Experience, which Young accused of spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Joni Mitchell soon followed, framing her decision as an act of solidarity. No one else seemed to follow.

 

"For legacy artists with vast cultural capital, withdrawal can be symbolic; for most musicians, it is economically risky"

 

Both artists returned their catalogues to Spotify in 2024, after Rogan’s podcast ceased to be exclusive to the platform and became available across multiple services. Their return highlighted a key reality of Spotify boycotts: for legacy artists with vast cultural capital, withdrawal can be symbolic; for most musicians, it is economically risky.

 

Still, these high-profile cases established a precedent. Spotify was no longer viewed solely as a neutral distributor of music, but as a political and cultural platform whose business decisions could provoke ethical objections.

 

Daniel Ek’s Investments in Helsing

 

Photo by ev on Unsplash

 

In 2025, ethical scrutiny intensified following Spotify CEO Daniel Ek’s investments in Helsing, a European defence technology company specialising in AI-driven military systems. Ek reportedly invested €100 million in 2021, followed by a further €600 million more recently.

 

Helsing has described its mission as defensive, stating that its technology is deployed “to European countries for deterrence and for defence against the Russian aggression in Ukraine only.” Ek himself has argued that modern warfare is increasingly shaped by AI, saying, “The world is being tested in more ways than ever before… it’s really now AI, mass and autonomy that is driving the new battlefield.”

 

Several artists removing their catalogues in 2025 explicitly cited Ek’s investments as a reason, framing their decisions as moral rather than financial. 

 

 

 

Massive Attack were the first and seemingly only act with a major label to remove their work from Spotify in protest to Ek’s investments, stating, “the economic burden that has long been placed on artists is now compounded by a moral and ethical burden, whereby the hard-earned money of fans and the creative endeavours of musicians ultimately funds lethal, dystopian technologies”.

 

Royalties

 

Artist compensation remains the most persistent criticism of Spotify. On average, the platform pays between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream, placing it among the lowest-paying major streaming services. Apple Music, by comparison, pays roughly double per stream on average, though its overall user base is smaller.

 

This issue has prompted boycotts before. Taylor Swift famously withheld her music from Spotify in its early years, arguing that the platform devalued music. Thom Yorke of Radiohead removed some of his solo projects due to the same issue. Both artists have now added their music back however.

Credit: omid armin

 

In 2014, funk band Vulfpeck released Sleepify, an album composed entirely of silent tracks. Fans were encouraged to play it overnight on repeat, generating an estimated $20,000 in royalties before Spotify removed the album for violating its terms of service. The stunt became a landmark moment in the debate over streaming economics.

 

 

ICE Ads

 

Spotify also faced backlash in 2024 after ICE recruitment advertisements were reportedly played to unpaid users in the United States. While this controversy led primarily to user boycotts, some artists responded by removing their music in protest.

 

Mexican rock band Café Tacvba and hardcore group Saetia both cited the ads as reasons for leaving the platform, arguing that they did not want their music associated with immigration enforcement messaging. This underscored how advertising decisions, particularly on a free, ad-supported platform, can entangle artists in political messaging.

 

AI Music Training

Concerns around artificial intelligence have also begun to surface. Spotify’s user agreement grants the company rights to “reproduce, modify, create derivative works from” and otherwise use uploaded content. While this language is common in digital platforms, it has raised fears that music could be used to train generative AI systems without explicit consent.

 

Photo by Aerps.com on Unsplash

 

High-profile artists including Dua Lipa, Sir Elton John, and Sir Paul McCartney have spoken out against AI firms using copyrighted music to train models without payment or permission. Daniel Ek has stated that AI should support human creators rather than replace them, but Spotify has so far taken few visible steps to address these concerns.

 

Notably, unlike YouTube, Meta, or TikTok, Spotify does not currently label AI-generated music. Despite this, there are relatively few documented cases of artists leaving the platform explicitly due to AI, suggesting that the issue remains more of a looming concern than an immediate threat.

 

 

Piracy

 

Unlike film and television, the music industry operates within a tightly consolidated streaming market. Movies and TV shows are licensed exclusively to individual platforms, forcing consumers to juggle multiple subscriptions. This dynamic has pushed some viewers back toward piracy.

 

Photo by Michael Geiger on Unsplash

 

The music industry works differently. Through digital distributors, artists often release music to all major platforms simultaneously. The competition, therefore, is not over who has the content, but over who offers the best service. With everything available in one place, Spotify can leverage its dominance without fear of losing subscribers.

 

This structure helps explain why artists, rather than listeners, are more likely to leave Spotify, and why their departures rarely disrupt the platform’s growth.