Spotify Removed More Than 500,000 Streams After a Prediction-Market Spike
Reviewed August 5, 2026: Malcolm Todd's track briefly hit No. 1 on Spotify's US chart after a suspicious spike tied to Kalshi betting. Spotify later removed plays it did not believe came from genuine listeners.
Short answer
Spotify removed more than 500,000 Earrings streams after a suspicious chart spike linked in reporting to Kalshi prediction-market activity. Spotify made no accusation against Malcolm Todd or his team. The case shows that outsiders can create artificial activity and that artists should document anomalies quickly with their distributor before charts, royalties, or accounts are corrected.
Spotify removed more than 500,000 streams from Malcolm Todd’s Earrings after a suspicious chart spike tied to Kalshi betting activity. Spotify has not accused Todd or his team. The lesson for independent artists is that artificial streaming can still land on your record, even if you did not buy it, and you need clean proof of your own promotion.
Key takeaways
- Spotify removed more than 500,000 streams from Earrings after identifying plays it did not believe came from genuine listeners.
- Reporting from CBS News, WIRED, the Financial Times, and Music Business Worldwide connected the spike to suspicious activity around Kalshi prediction-market bets on Spotify chart outcomes.
- Spotify has not accused Malcolm Todd or his team of buying the streams.
- Independent artists should treat strange stream spikes as a risk signal: document legitimate promotion, watch distributor notices, and do not touch playlist or stream guarantees.
What happened?
On July 2, 2026, CBS News reported that Malcolm Todd’s track Earrings rose roughly 70% overnight and reached No. 1 on Spotify’s US daily chart. Multiple outlets reported that the move lined up with betting activity on Kalshi, where users were wagering on Spotify chart outcomes. Spotify later removed more than 500,000 plays it believed were artificial and updated the chart.
The important caveat is simple: there is no public evidence that Todd or his team caused the manipulation. That is exactly why the story matters for working artists. A track can become part of a manipulation event because someone else has a financial incentive around the chart, not because the artist ordered fake streams.
What if the spike is not yours?
Spotify’s artist support says it removes artificial streams from public numbers through daily cleaning. It also says private Spotify for Artists metrics can differ from public counts, and that a label or distributor may receive a warning when a track is affected. A difference or sudden jump is a reason to check your records, not proof that your team caused anything.
| Check this first | Then do this | |
|---|---|---|
| Your promotion | Ads, creator posts, press, email, playlist adds, and release timing | Save dates, receipts, links, and Spotify for Artists screenshots |
| The account notice | Distributor or label messages about artificial streaming | Share the promotion methods with the distributor or label handling the release |
| The playlist source | A playlist or service you do not recognize | Report suspicious playlist activity through Spotify's artist support path |
| The public number | A public count that does not match private Spotify for Artists reporting | Record both views and wait for the platform or distributor explanation |
Keep the explanation boring
The useful record is a dated promotion trail: what you paid for, what you posted, which partners you used, and when the number moved. It gives your distributor something concrete to review if an outsider’s activity lands on your track.
Why independent artists should care
Artificial streaming is usually discussed like an artist scam: someone buys plays, the distributor flags the track, and the artist pays the cost. This case shows a different shape. If outside incentives can push fake listening toward a song, the artist still has to deal with the mess: corrected charts, confused fans, distributor questions, and a public story that can follow the track.
| Legitimate signal | Risk signal | |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Campaign, sync, creator use, editorial placement, tour moment | Unknown playlists, repeated bot-like listening, sudden market-linked spike |
| Your evidence | Ad receipts, posts, press, influencer links, distributor reports | No matching campaign or audience behavior |
| Next move | Archive the proof and keep watching retention | Screenshot analytics and ask your distributor before it escalates |
A spike is only good news when you can explain where it came from.
What to do now
Do not buy chart pressure
Avoid any service that guarantees streams, playlist placement, chart movement, or a fixed listener count. Spotify’s own artist guidance is clear that artificial streaming can lead to removals, royalty withholding, and distributor action.
Keep a promo paper trail
Save the receipts for legitimate spikes: ad campaigns, creator posts, press coverage, tour announcements, email sends, playlist adds, and screenshots from Spotify for Artists. If your distributor asks why a track moved, you want a boring answer with dates.
Watch for outsider spikes
If streams jump with no matching saves, follows, geography, or promo activity, capture the analytics and contact your distributor. Do not wait until a fraud report arrives.
What is still unclear?
Open questions
Spotify has confirmed artificial streams were removed, but public reporting has not proven who caused the manipulation or whether any prediction-market user ordered it. It is also unclear whether platforms will build special protections around chart betting. The safe artist move does not depend on that answer: keep promotion clean and keep records when the numbers move.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
Why did Spotify remove streams from Earrings?
Spotify said it removed plays it did not believe came from genuine listeners after the track experienced an unusual spike. Reporting connected the activity to betting on chart outcomes.
Did Spotify accuse Malcolm Todd of buying streams?
No accusation against Todd or his team appears in the reporting cited by the article.
Can an outsider trigger artificial streams on an artist's track?
Yes. A third party can generate or commission suspicious activity without the artist's approval. The artist may still face chart corrections, withheld royalties, distributor questions, or reputational damage.
What should an artist do after an unexplained stream spike?
Save screenshots and dates, compare territories and sources, notify the distributor in writing, ask whether Spotify issued a fraud report, and avoid anyone offering to stabilize or replace the traffic.
Related Velveteen guides
Related Velveteen tools
Get music industry updates without the noise
Short notes on platform changes, royalty issues, and release marketing moves that actually affect independent artists.
Was this useful? Send a signal or flag a correction.