A federal judge has permanently dismissed a lawsuit accusing Spotify of allowing billions of allegedly fraudulent streams of Drake’s music, ending rapper RBX’s proposed class action against the streaming giant.
U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton rejected the case after determining that RBX, whose legal name is Eric Dwayne Collins, failed to provide sufficient facts showing that Spotify violated the law or owed him a specific legal duty to protect his royalty earnings.
According to Rolling Stone, the 16-page ruling found that Collins had not established the necessary grounds for his negligence and unfair competition claims. The judge also rejected allegations that Spotify selectively enforced its streaming policies or engaged in fraudulent business practices.
“Although plaintiff may have less power in the music industry as compared to Spotify, that does not mean his relationship with Spotify is characterized by any protection Spotify gives to plaintiff,” Staton wrote.
The judge described the arrangement between the rapper and Spotify as a “mutually beneficial economic” relationship, explaining that differences in bargaining power do not automatically establish the special legal duty required for a negligence claim.
The Spotify streaming lawsuit had already been dismissed once in June 2026, but Collins received permission to submit an amended complaint addressing the court’s concerns. He filed that revised complaint in July, presenting additional allegations about Spotify’s enforcement practices and the financial impact of artificial streams.
However, those changes were not enough to keep the case alive.
“After granting leave to amend once, and considering the additional facts alleged in the [first amended complaint], the court has found no reason to depart from its prior conclusions,” Staton wrote.
The latest dismissal was issued with prejudice, preventing Collins from bringing the same claims again in the district court. The ruling does not establish whether fraudulent streaming occurred on Spotify. Instead, it determines that the allegations presented were legally insufficient to support the lawsuit.
Collins, who is Snoop Dogg’s cousin and performs under the name RBX, originally filed the proposed class action in November 2025. He accused Spotify of “turning a blind eye” to widespread streaming manipulation that allegedly benefited major recording artists while reducing royalty payments for smaller musicians.
The complaint focused heavily on Drake, alleging that a “substantial, non-trivial percentage” of approximately 37 billion streams recorded during a period between January 2022 and September 2025 were “inauthentic and appeared to be the work of a sprawling network of bot accounts.”
According to the original complaint, suspicious listening patterns included unusual geographic activity, accounts allegedly playing music for nearly entire days, and artificial traffic disguised through virtual private networks.
One example involved Drake’s song “No Face.” Collins alleged that at least 250,000 streams during a four-day period in 2024 originated in Turkey but were made to appear as though they came from the United Kingdom.
These claims were allegations made by the plaintiff, not findings established by the court.
Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham, was never named as a defendant in the Spotify streaming lawsuit. The complaint targeted Spotify’s alleged failure to prevent artificial listening activity rather than accusing Drake of personally operating streaming bots.
The central financial argument involved Spotify’s “streamshare” royalty system.
Under that model, money generated through subscriptions and advertising is distributed to music rights holders according to their proportional share of eligible streams. Collins argued that when artificial streams inflate one artist’s numbers, legitimate artists receive a smaller percentage of the overall royalty pool.
The rapper’s amended complaint expanded those claims considerably. As reported by Music Business Worldwide, Collins alleged that Spotify’s practices had “diverted at least $600 million in royalties away from music rights holders” over approximately four years.
He also claimed the company enforced streaming fraud policies more aggressively against smaller artists while allowing alleged manipulation involving commercially successful performers to continue.
However, Staton concluded that Collins had not presented enough specific factual allegations to establish selective enforcement, actionable deception, or the legal responsibility necessary to hold Spotify liable.
Spotify has consistently denied benefiting from artificial streams. According to the company’s published artificial streaming policies, its systems identify and remove fraudulent plays, withhold associated royalties, and impose penalties when manipulation is detected.
Spotify also maintains that confirmed artificial streams do not contribute to official public streaming counts or influence its recommendation algorithms.
Rolling Stone reported that a representative for Drake declined to comment on the latest dismissal. Attorneys representing Collins and Spotify had not immediately responded to requests for comment.
The ruling arrives while another lawsuit involving allegations about Drake’s streaming numbers remains paused in federal court.
That separate case, filed in Virginia, names Drake and livestreamer Adin Ross among defendants accused of participating in an alleged scheme involving the online gambling platform Stake.us.
According to that complaint, the defendants allegedly used the platform to finance a “bot army” intended to artificially increase streams of Drake’s music.
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants participated in a scheme to “prey upon consumers,” expose them to “substantial risks of gambling addiction,” and threaten their financial stability.
They claim they were “influenced to participate” in Stake’s gambling operation after viewing promotional content involving Drake, including livestreamed gambling sessions and giveaways.
Unlike the dismissed Spotify streaming lawsuit, the Virginia case directly names Drake as a defendant. Its allegations remain unproven.
On July 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema paused the Virginia litigation after ruling that the plaintiffs must pursue arbitration with Stake under the platform’s user agreement. The court ordered the related claims against Drake and the other defendants to remain on hold pending that arbitration.
