Spotify’s own CSV data shows identical listener counts across catalogs, saves that exceed listeners, and machine like stream sequences prompting a request for expedited discovery.
NORWALK, CT, June 29, 2026 /24 7PressRelease/ Independent Recording Artist Mark M. Kratter who is also an attorney, electrical engineer, inventor, and copyrights and patent holder has announced that analysis of Spotify’s CSV data shows statistically impossible patterns in how the platform reports his listeners, streams, and saves. The data, taken directly from Spotify’s own CSV downloads, includes identical listener counts across entire catalogs, save totals that exceed listener totals, and stream patterns that resemble machine generated sequences rather than organic human behavior.
Kratter is one of the most prolific independent artists in the United States, with more than 125 albums and more than 1,900 songs released across multiple genres and artistic identities. His work spans the entire Jewish Bible (Tanakh), Jewish spiritual music, hip hop, EDM, dance, rock, biblical storytelling, Jewish holidays, comedy, and experimental concept albums. He maintains multiple artist identities, each representing a distinct creative voice and musical style.
Entire Catalogs Showing Exactly One Listener
Across several of Kratter’s artist identities, Spotify reports:
• 1 listener per track
• across entire 28 day periods
• across multiple albums
• across multiple genres
• across multiple release dates
Examples from the CSVs include:
• KratterVision: all 16 songs show 1 listener and 2 saves each
• Mark Michaels Messiah Band: all 14 songs show 1 listener
• Menachem Kratter Band: 20 songs show 1 to 2 listeners with 2 saves on nearly every track
Kratter states that seeing one listener across an entire catalog is not normal.
Saves Exceeding Listener Counts
Spotify does not allow:
• a listener to save a song twice
• a song to have more saves than listeners
• a save without a stream
Yet Kratter’s CSVs show entries such as:
• Electric Hashem: 1 listener, 17 streams, 2 saves
• Colors I Cannot Name: 1 listener, 8 streams, 2 saves
• Hashem Lights the Arcade: 0 listeners, 0 streams, 2 saves
Kratter notes that a person cannot save a song they did not listen to and cannot save it twice.
Stream Counts Form Perfect Staircases
Across multiple artist identities, stream counts fall into smooth descending sequences such as:
17, 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 11, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1
8, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1
Real listener behavior is chaotic, not mathematically neat.
Each Artist Identity Appears to Have a Different Ceiling
Kratter’s CSVs show that each of his artist identities appears to hit a maximum number of streams that it never exceeds, even when new music is released or when listener behavior should vary naturally. These ceilings differ from profile to profile, despite all the music coming from the same person.
Examples include:
• Mark Kratter Band topping out around 83
• RapsterKratter topping out around 30
• Mark Michaels Singles topping out around 22
• Menachem Kratter Band topping out around 17
• KratterVision topping out around 8
• Mark Michaels Messiah Band topping out around 5
Kratter states that real audiences do not impose fixed maximums on unrelated songs across multiple genres and identities.
Earlier Data Looked Normal Until a Sudden Shift in Early March
Kratter’s January and February 2026 Spotify data showed natural variation, multiple listeners per track, saves that matched listener counts, and spikes and dips consistent with real audiences.
In early March 2026, the reporting changed abruptly. Listener counts flattened, saves no longer matched streams, and entire catalogs began showing identical numbers. This timing coincides with what many independent artists have described as a quiet change in Spotify’s listener counting rules.
Kratter notes that while he cannot yet confirm the existence of a rule change, the before and after contrast in his data is clear and immediate. He has therefore sought expedited discovery to obtain the underlying reporting information needed to verify what the current data strongly suggests.
Data Shows Artificial Floors Across Multiple Profiles
Kratter’s CSVs also show what appear to be artificial floors. Many songs never drop below a specific number of streams, even when listener counts remain flat or identical across entire catalogs.
Examples include:
• Songs that remain at 2 streams even when listener counts stay at 1
• Songs that never fall below 1 stream even when Spotify reports 0 listeners
• Catalogs where every track shares the same minimum number regardless of release date
• Tracks that hold the same baseline number for weeks with no variation
• Profiles where every song has the same starting point even when released apart
Kratter notes that real listener behavior does not produce fixed minimums across dozens of unrelated songs.
False Data Leads to False Earnings
Kratter notes that Spotify royalties are calculated directly from the same listener and stream counts shown in the CSV files. If the underlying data is inaccurate, then the earnings derived from that data are also inaccurate. This is a mathematical consequence of the platform’s own payout structure.
Spotify’s 1,000 Stream Minimum Withholding Rule
Kratter also notes that Spotify’s 2026 payout policy requires a minimum of 1,000 streams before an artist receives any earnings. Under this rule, Spotify counts streams, generates revenue from those streams, and retains that revenue while paying the artist zero until the threshold is met. Several of Kratter’s early releases accumulated hundreds of legitimate streams that produced real monetary value for Spotify, yet resulted in no payout to the artist. Kratter states that when this threshold is combined with the platform’s sudden suppression of reach, identical listener counts, and mathematically impossible reporting patterns, the result is a system where an artist may never reach the 1,000 stream minimum, making accurate earnings impossible to verify and financial harm unavoidable.
Amended Complaint and Motion for Expedited Discovery
Kratter has amended his complaint in Connecticut Superior Court to incorporate the newly discovered data patterns and their financial implications. Along with the amended filing, he has submitted a motion for expedited discovery in connection with the pending injunction request.
The motion seeks additional reporting data from Spotify to verify the accuracy of the platform’s listener and stream counts and to determine whether the reported numbers can be independently validated.
Kratter states that when identical listener counts, impossible save ratios, fixed ceilings, and fixed floors appear across entire catalogs, the accuracy of the reported earnings becomes impossible to verify. He emphasizes that he is not alleging intent, only that the numbers as reported cannot produce reliable financial results.
About Mark M. Kratter
Mark M. Kratter is an independent recording artist, attorney, electrical engineer, and inventor based in Norwalk, Connecticut. With more than 125 albums and more than 1,900 released songs across multiple artistic identities, he is one of the most prolific independent recording artists in the United States.
Kratter is also an inventor, copyrights and patent holder for the ZUBO sculptural footwear designs created with designer Boris Zuborev. In addition, he is involved in copyright matters relating to authorship and originality of early East Village shoe designs from the 1990s. These matters concern artistic shoe concepts associated with Converse and Timberland and are currently before the Federal District Court in Washington D.C.
Kratter’s background in electrical engineering and legal analysis informs his data driven approach to evaluating digital platform reporting and analytics.
—
For the original version of this press release, please visit 24-7PressRelease.com here
Legal Disclaimer: This article was provided by an independent third-party content provider. Kyrion Media makes no warranties or representations in connection with it. All information is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. This content may not have been reviewed by our editorial staff and is published automatically. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Kyrion Media. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. If you are affiliated with this article and would like it removed, please contact retract@kyrionmedia.com.
