Connecticut Artist Suits Spotify Over Alleged Algorithmic Royalty Cuts

Mark Kratter, a Norwalk attorney and producer of the Mark Kratter Band, filed a lawsuit in the Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford on June 3. The suit accuses Spotify of using undisclosed, unfair, and deceptive practices to reduce payments to independent artists. Kratter claims the streaming giant altered its algorithm so that certain streams are no longer counted and instituted a 1,000‑stream minimum threshold for royalty eligibility.

Kratter has produced more than 2,000 songs for his band, including 93 albums released since the fall of 2025 and a 50‑album project containing roughly 700 songs based on the Hebrew Bible. He began uploading the music to Spotify in November 2025. By March 2026 the band had about 1,000 average monthly listeners, and streams were regularly added to playlists and discovery radios. The lawsuit alleges that in March 2026 Spotify made unannounced changes that caused a sharp decline in streams, dropping monthly listeners to just over 100.

According to Kratter, the changes involved filtering out streams that came from Spotify’s radio and suggested‑playlist features—sources that had previously contributed the bulk of his audience. He says the platform stopped counting those streams and applied a 1,000‑stream minimum for royalty calculations. “What’s happened is the numbers are not real, they’re fake,” Kratter told reporters. “Looking at them, they’re impossible. They’re impossible, so they have to be fake.” He also described the data as “really strange” and unreliable.

Spotify’s royalty model, as outlined on its artist support pages, pays artists based on the proportion of streams their tracks receive relative to all streams on the service. In 2024 the company introduced a rule that a track must accumulate at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months before it enters the royalty pool. The rule is intended to reduce fraud and low‑value payouts, but it has been criticized for cutting revenue for many independent musicians.

Spotify has not responded to a request for comment, and the company has not filed any documents in response to the lawsuit. Kratter, who is representing himself, is seeking discovery so he can examine how the alleged algorithm changes affected his streams.

The case adds to a growing number of complaints from independent artists about Spotify’s royalty and discovery practices. Similar disputes have surfaced in the Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc. settlement class, where artists argued that the platform’s algorithms and payout thresholds disadvantaged them.

At present, the lawsuit remains pending. No court decision has been issued, and it is unclear whether the judge will allow discovery or what the outcome might be. The case will likely prompt further scrutiny of Spotify’s algorithmic and royalty policies, especially as the company continues to refine its recommendation engines and payout calculations.

The lawsuit underscores the challenges that small, niche artists face on large streaming platforms. While Spotify’s model has enabled many musicians to reach global audiences, the recent changes and the 1,000‑stream threshold have raised questions about fairness and transparency for artists who rely on streaming revenue.

The next steps for the case will depend on the court’s ruling on discovery and whether Spotify chooses to respond formally. Until then, the dispute remains a significant point of concern for independent creators navigating the evolving streaming landscape.