Why The Spotify Boycott Is About More Than Music

Photo is AI-generated

Spotify has been on the receiving end of public backlash as of late; the streaming platform has drawn ire with calls for mass boycotts. In the past, musicians have put Spotify on blast for low payouts, but the company has claimed that it paid out more than $10 billion to the music industry in 2024. A report from Duetti revealed that compared to other streaming platforms like Amazon Music, Apple Music and YouTube, Spotify paid musicians the lowest, although Spotify disputed this claim in a statement to TechCrunch.

A spokesperson for Spotify disputed the veracity of the 2024 Duetti report. “Every other streaming service pays less than Spotify. Spotify paid out $10 billion to the music industry last year and has paid out $60 billion all time. Our music subscription competitors haven’t reported their subscriber figures or music industry payouts in years, because they pay far less. Additionally, per stream rate is a false narrative–a high per stream rate means that users are listening less.”

The calls to boycott Spotify come at a moment when the company has seen an influx of subscribers. According to reports, the company exceeded third quarter expectations, growing 11% to 713 million monthly active users. The company has expanded its offerings and in August, the company announced that the premium subscription price would be increasing. MusicWeek reported that Spotify users are now able to receive music and podcast recommendations within ChatGPT.

More recently, the company sparked backlash after it was reported that Spotify’s CEO, Daniel Ek, had invested $693.6 million in the European defense technology startup Helsing. There has been a rise in defense technology used by countries like the U.S., Australia, Germany, and Japan, according to McKinsey, as well as countries like China and Israel. This technology has been criticized for its role in propelling the military-industrial complex, with ethical concerns over how the technology has been used to target and surveille different communities.

The criticism reached a fever pitch recently when reports came out that Spotify, along with other streaming services, had been running recruitment ads for U.S. Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE). In response to the backlash against the ad, a Spotify spokesperson clarified in a statement, “This ad is part of a wider campaign from the U.S. government running across multiple platforms, including television, streaming, and online channels. Users can provide feedback on ads—such as liking or disliking them—to help manage their ad experience.” The backlash against ICE has intensified in recent months because of the excessive force used by ICE agents to increase arrests. According to Newsweek, Spotify users have already started canceling their subscriptions over the ads.

Though some may question the efficacy of consumer boycotts, in 2025 we’ve seen a potent example of the impacts of a targeted consumer boycott. Target is a great case study—a consumer boycott was encouraged after the company got rid of their DEI initiatives; the decision and the subsequent boycotts may be partially to blame for the company’s decreased sales over the last several months. There have been a number of effective consumer boycotts throughout history, including the Montogomery Bus Boycotts and the anti-apartheid boycotts.

For corporations, the desire to increase profits always trumps the needs of the people. In the past, organizations could participate in problematic partnerships and align with corrupt corporations, and a similar pattern would emerge: Backlash followed by public amnesia. But if Target is a cautionary tale, accountability season is here—consumers are more driven to support brands that align with their beliefs and values, research indicates. People are beginning to recognize the immense power that they hold and realize that withholding one’s dollar can drive institutional change.

The public is tired of the status quo; unemployment in the U.S. is rising, with over a million jobs having been cut this year, according to CBS News. People are rightfully upset over the suspension of federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and rising prices, and inflated healthcare premiums are causing growing concerns. Given the ballooning costs of living, it is an ideal time to be more judicious with your spending and eliminate unnecessary expenses. A streaming service subscription that may have seemed worth it years ago may not appeal to consumers in the same way anymore. In addition, Spotify alternatives like Apple Music, Tidal and Deezer may make boycotting easier for consumers.

The calls for a mass boycott come at an inopportune time. Spotify is gearing up for its annual year-in-review initiative, Spotify Wrapped which, according to multiple reports, was created by artist and former Spotify intern Jewel Ham. Ham provided receipts of a concept she created in 2019 that looks eerily similar to the current Spotify Wrapped format, but a spokesperson for Spotify refuted Ham’s claims, indicating that no individual intern invented Spotify Wrapped or its format. Spotify Wrapped allows users to get detailed stats on their listening behavior throughout the year and share graphics about this across social media. This end-of-year strategy has become a successful tool for the company to drive user engagement and retention.

The Spotify boycott is about more than just music; it signals a shift in consumer behaviors. Spotify and every other corporation should learn from this situation. Consumers are demanding more transparency and accountability from the businesses and brands that they buy from. Today, when there are a plethora of options and alternatives, it is much easier for consumers to stop supporting companies that aren’t aligned with their beliefs and values.

If a corporation wants to remain viable, it cannot deprioritize or ignore the needs, wants and desires of consumers and should not be afraid to pivot, cut ties with or divest from partnerships that alienate their customers. Many of us may feel powerless under the current conditions but each of us can use our voice via what we buy, what we consume and what we support. Companies take note: the power is in the hands of the consumers now more than ever.

This article was originally published in Forbes on November 8, 2025.