Over a year since they announced new measures to ensure that artists and producers are protected against growing AI technologies, streaming platform Spotify has offered an update into how their efforts have gone.
First detailed in September 2025, Spotify outlined their approach to dealing with artificial intelligence, introducing the likes of a new spam filtering system, improved enforcement of impersonation violations, and AI disclosures for music with industry-standard credits.
At the time, the platform also revealed their efforts were not exactly new, having previously taken action against anything which seeks to offer a negative impact upon the creative and listening process.
Specifically, they noted that in the past 12 months up to that point, Spotify had removed 75 million "spammy tracks" – the equivalent to roughly two years' worth of annual uploads to the service.
So how have things gone in the year since?
In a newsletter shared by the streamer – subtitled Putting Human Artistry First on Spotify – the platform made clear their belief that "AI-generated slop and spam don’t belong in your recommendations" and explained how far they've taken this statement.
Specifically, the last year has seen more than 50 million "slop and spam tracks" taken out of recommendations, which is in addition to more than 75 million "spammy tracks" which were removed from the platform entirely due to "serious or repeated violations of our rules".
Though not specified, it appears that this new figure of 75 million is also in addition to the 75 million tracks noted as being removed in the previous year.
"Earlier this year, we looked closely at the tracks listeners were skipping, ignoring, or telling us they didn’t want to hear," the platform explained. "A clear pattern emerged: these tracks were consistently ones identified as slop or spam.
"Over the past six months, we’ve made numerous updates to our recommendation system to remove slop and spam, and surface more music made by authentic, human artists. Our editors hold the same standard and don’t program content identified as slop or spam.
"Since we made these changes, we’ve seen a marked decrease in listener concerns about this content showing up in recommendations."
The streamer noted that no one method has been used to detect these tracks, with a combination of "listener engagement and feedback, upload patterns, metadata, and information from multiple third-party AI detection tools" being used to single out these musical bad actors.
"AI detection technology in particular has limitations, and it will only get harder as generative AI evolves," they added. "Using these signals together, we can identify likely slop or spam with more confidence.
"We also hunt for new tactics, including mass uploads, duplicates, SEO manipulation, spammy playlist networks, and artificially short tracks. As spammers change tactics, we’ll keep updating our systems."
This year has seen a major focus placed upon AI in the world of music, with specific mind being paid in Australia to Josh Fawaz, whose reworking of Madonna's Like A Prayer attracted criticisms of being AI-generated.
Having become the most played song on Australian radio at one point, this issue was raised by the likes of Australian producer Mitch Thomas otherwise known as Needs No Sleep, took to social media to share a video in which he labelled Fawaz "the biggest issue in music right now" and alleging that his music "is generated entirely with AI".
Fawaz responded in the comments of Thomas' video, telling him to "stop having a little sook" and admitting that he uses "AI as a tool" in pursuit of "providing my listeners with good music", but did not specifically address claims that his rework of Like A Prayer is AI-generated.
In July, however, AI credits were added to the track on platforms such as Spotify, outlining that Generative AI had been utilised when it came to the drums and vocals on the song.
Per Spotify's latest update, Fawaz isn't the only one to utilise AI Credits on the service. In fact, since launching the ability to disclose the information back in April, usage has risen to the point where artists are "submitting tens of thousands of credits every day".
Though refreshing to see such transparency, that number pales in comparison to the amount of songs removed per day, and obviously doesn't reflect the increasing number of tracks which do not submit AI Credits.
This new figure also tracks with comments made by Sam Duboff – Spotify’s Global Head of Artists, Marketing & Policy – when he spoke to The Music in July.
"When we launched AI credits in partnership with distributors, we weren't really sure if artists were willing to share [this information]," Duboff explained. "We're seeing really significant uptake. We're getting tens of thousands of AI credits every day already.
"The real goal is to have an easy way for artists in good faith to share how they're using AI, and then it might mean something like where if an artist isn't sharing that they're using AI in a significant way, maybe that's when you can add different incentives and penalties."
Spotify also pointed to the likes of their Verified by Spotify badge, claiming more than 300,000 artists (which represent more than 99% of what listeners actively search for on the platform) are now verified, indicating a "real, identifiable person is behind the music".
Alongside tools such as AI Persona badges and artist profile protection, Spotify also highlighted their 1,000-stream royalty threshold as being a "first line of defense for human artists against the wave of AI-generated content."
They explained that tracks which feature indicators showing a high probability of being AI-generated are 10 times more likely to fall below the threshold, making it harder for these tracks to become monetised and steal royalties away from real artists.
Spotify's full update on their AI efforts is available via the platform's Newsroom.
