Spotify turns down the noise on AI-generated music

When algorithms race ahead of rules, streaming platforms are forced to redraw the guardrails. The meteoric rise of generative AI, which can now mimic voices, compose music, remix genres, and mass-produce tracks at minimal cost, has pushed Spotify to tighten its stance on content integrity.

In an increasingly noisy ecosystem where bad actors can churn out algorithmic ‘slop’, the audio streaming major is drawing a hard line to protect artists, preserve royalty pools, and ensure listeners aren’t deceived.

On 25 September 2025, it unveiled a sweeping set of policy enhancements: tougher impersonation rules, a next-generation spam-filtering engine, and mandatory transparency around AI use via metadata credits. The urgency is palpable. Over the past 12 months alone, Spotify says it has removed more than 75 million spammy tracks.

As the company put it in a press note, “If for every four real songs on Spotify, three fake songs have been published and deleted, it’s not just music. A podcast startup is ‘flooding the zone’ with 3,000 AI-generated episodes per week. The most viral video of the summer was ‘rabbits on trampoline’ and we all got duped.”

A company spokesperson told Campaign, “There are millions of artists and billions of uploads on Spotify. We’ve acted quickly to remove the content we believe to be spam to ensure that no undue royalties or streams were realised. We continuously refine our processes to better distinguish between legitimate releases and impersonations. It’s a complex balance between protecting artists from misuse while not unfairly blocking legitimate musicians, and we take that responsibility very seriously.”

Spotify says these efforts are about creating a fairer, more transparent space for artists. “Accounts and tracks engaging in these tactics are tagged, and we stop recommending them—protecting attention and payouts for artists playing by the rules. We’ll keep adjusting, and keep rolling out updates that make the music ecosystem more transparent and more fair—for artists, for rightsholders, and for the millions of listeners who trust Spotify,” the spokesperson added.

The three pillars of AI governance

Spotify’s new framework rests on three pillars: impersonation control, spam prevention, and AI disclosure. The first targets deepfake recordings.

Voice cloning and impersonation of artists are now permitted only with explicit consent. A new content mismatch system allows musicians to flag fraudulent uploads even before release.

Spotify’s reasoning is direct: “Unauthorised use of AI to clone an artist’s voice exploits their identity, undermines their artistry, and threatens the fundamental integrity of their work.”

The second pillar is a sophisticated spam-filtering engine designed to detect manipulation. It identifies mass uploads, duplicate audio files, metadata abuse, and ultra-short tracks engineered to inflate streams.

The rollout is gradual, ensuring legitimate creators aren’t mistakenly penalised. As Spotify sees it, unchecked spam not only clutters the catalogue but also siphons royalties from genuine artists.

The final pillar focuses on transparency. Spotify is backing a new DDEX metadata standard that tags tracks with details on how AI contributed to their creation, be it vocals, instrumentation, or post-production.

The company stresses that this isn’t about penalising AI use, but rather about accountability: “This change is about strengthening trust across the platform. It’s not about punishing artists who use AI responsibly or down-ranking tracks for disclosing information about how they were made.” Together, these guardrails outline Spotify’s position—AI may augment music, but it must never replace authenticity.

The scale of the problem

Spotify’s crackdown must be viewed in the context of its staggering scale. Its catalogue is estimated to hold around 100 million tracks, which makes the 75 million removed in the past year striking. If even a fraction of that total represented fake or spammy uploads, it underscores the magnitude of the challenge.

Some observers argue Spotify’s incentives go beyond altruism. A bloated catalogue of low-quality uploads muddies its recommendation algorithms and dilutes listener trust.

Yet the platform insists this is not about overreach. As its spokesperson noted, “We continuously refine our processes to better distinguish between legitimate releases and impersonations.”

Independent musicians are watching closely. One creator, Kabir Arya (name changed on request), told Campaign, “The streaming economy runs on products from creators who rarely see significant revenue. On the other hand, music platforms, distributors, and labels are the ones who end up bagging most of the value. I hope that platforms like Spotify will also address that imbalance while filtering out spam.”

Spotify’s representative responded that the effort is not punitive but protective. “We look for patterns like mass uploads, duplicates, SEO manipulation, and artificially short track abuse,” the spokesperson said. “Flagged accounts and tracks are tagged, and recommendations blocked, so as to protect attention and payouts for artists playing by the rules.”

When creation costs zero

Generative AI has lowered the cost of creation to nearly nothing. A few prompts can now yield hundreds of tracks overnight, raising a fundamental question: if music can be generated infinitely, where does value reside?

Spotify’s stance is pragmatic. Its spokesperson told Campaign, “By any measure, engagement with AI-generated music on our platform is minimal and isn’t impacting streams or revenue distribution for human artists in any meaningful way.” The company is positioning AI as a creative aid, not a replacement.

Yet the long-term risk is real. A flood of algorithmic music could erode differentiation and overwhelm discovery systems, making it harder for genuine musicians to surface. Algorithms tend to amplify scale and frequency—precisely what AI excels at producing.

Another musician, Sanyukta Ahire (name changed on request), believes that enforcement and clarity will determine whether artists feel truly protected. “It is stemming the flood of completely new AI-generated music,” she said. “And the only way it can be done is by strict enforcement and clear guidelines. This will determine if music creators truly get the protection they require.”

Spotify’s spokesperson reiterated that its current measures focus on misuse, not experimentation. “At this point, by any measure, engagement with AI-generated music on our platform is minimal and isn't impacting streams or revenue distribution for human artists in any meaningful way. Our priority remains supporting human artists and ensuring fair and transparent monetisation.”

The legal gray zone

While Spotify’s policies address platform behaviour, be it impersonation, spam, and metadata, it does not fully cover the legal ownership of AI-affected works. Master recordings and compositions typically fall under contracts between artists, labels, and aggregators, where AI rights are still murky.

As Arya told Campaign, “The real balance will come when creators have a seat at the table where these rules are written. As artists, writers, and rights holders, we need to stay alert, stay informed, and keep pushing for systems that respect our work above all.”

Spotify’s spokesperson clarified that it doesn’t control such contracts: “Artists sign contracts with their labels and aggregators, not with Spotify.”

That leaves unresolved questions. What happens if a label signs away an artist’s right to block AI replication? Can a composition be re-used as ‘training data’ without breaching copyright? Until the legal frameworks evolve, artists may find themselves protected only within the boundaries of the platforms that host them.

Beyond filters: Spotify’s endgame

Filtering spam is only the beginning. The deeper goal is to preserve human creativity in a world of infinite content. Spotify maintains that it neither creates nor owns music; rather, it licenses it and pays royalties based on engagement. In a statement, it said, “We are a platform for licensed music where royalties are paid based on listener engagement, and all music is treated equally, regardless of the tools used to make it.”

Yet the sustainability of this model depends on the health of its creator base. If real musicians lose visibility or revenue, the ecosystem collapses. For Spotify, ensuring that originality is rewarded requires more than policing spam—it calls for product design that prioritises artistry over output. That means discovery algorithms that amplify quality, playlists that celebrate creative risks, and editorial curation that restores human taste.

Spotify claims it is committed to that path. “We support artists’ freedom to use AI creatively while actively combating its misuse by content farms and bad actors,” a company statement said. The rollout of DDEX-based AI disclosures could eventually help curators and listeners distinguish authentic work from synthetic mimicry. Provenance itself might become the new currency of trust.

Its spokesperson told Campaign that many artists are optimistic about AI’s potential. They want to know they can use AI, in the right way, and that Spotify is supportive of that.

“At the same time, artists and rightsholders want stronger protections against impersonation and spam, so that those who are misusing get penalized, which we are doing. Fans care most that the music is good and the artist benefits,” the company stated.

To that end, it is trying to provide more context about how music is made and reward artists with genuine intent. “Our updates reflect that: clearer rules and recourse for identity misuse, a scaled anti-spam system, and transparent credits—without gatekeeping creativity. We’ll keep listening and iterating as the tech evolves,” Spotify told Campaign.

The battle for trust

Spotify’s latest overhaul is a defensive but necessary play. It’s a recognition that in the age of AI, trust is currency. The platform is trying to strike equilibrium between innovation and exploitation, between creative freedom and content pollution.

But the balance will remain precarious. Will strict enforcement suppress legitimate experimentation? Will content farms evolve faster than filters? And can contracts across global labels and publishers be updated fast enough to protect human creators from synthetic imitation?

These are questions without easy answers. What’s clear is that Spotify’s policies mark the start of a broader industry reckoning—one where the definition of ‘authentic music’ may soon depend on metadata, disclosure, and digital provenance.

Spotify is betting its credibility on a future where AI amplifies creativity rather than erodes it. But the platform also plays referee in a contest it profits from. Its choices will shape not only its catalogue but also the contours of music itself.

In the end, the question for every platform isn’t simply how to manage AI—it’s what kind of art ecosystem it wants to sustain. When generative technology becomes indistinguishable from human output, the differentiator won’t be sound quality or speed. It will be trust, context, and the stories behind the music.

Those who defend that space will define the next era of artistry. And for now, Spotify seems determined to stand guard at the edge of that frontier.