Snoop Dogg's Resolved Alleged 'Underpayment' Dispute With Spotify Resurfaces After $45K for a Billion Streams Claim

Snoop Dogg's past dispute with Spotify over streaming royalties has resurfaced online after clips from a 2023 podcast interview began circulating again.

Although the rapper once alleged he received only '$45,000 (£33,000) for a billion streams' and publicly criticised the platform, the disagreement has since been resolved after both sides held discussions in 2025.

Snoop Claimed Billion Streams Earned Just $45,000

The controversy began during Snoop's appearance on the Business Untitled podcast in 2023, where he questioned the amount of money he said he received from Spotify after surpassing one billion streams.

During the interview, Snoop claimed he had earned only '$45,000 (£33,000) for a billion streams' and criticised what he believed was an unfair royalty system.

'Y'all paid me $45,000 for a billion streams? A BILLION,' Snoop said.

He went on to argue that the figure did not reflect the value of his music or the success it had generated on the platform.

'That ain't no typo. Forty five racks for a billion plays of my music. That's robbery in broad daylight.'

At the time, Snoop said he had spent years monitoring streaming figures before deciding to speak publicly about his concerns. He also warned that he would consider legal action if he did not receive an explanation for the alleged payout.

'Spotify, you better explain that math or I'm taking this straight to court,' he said.

Rap Star Said Other Artists Could Be Facing the Same Problem

Snoop argued that the issue extended beyond his own catalogue, suggesting many artists may not fully understand how streaming revenue reaches them.

'I know I'm not the only one,' he said.

'How many artists out here grinding, dropping heat and getting pennies while these platforms laugh all the way to the bank? That's not business. That's stealing from the people who actually make the music.'

His comments reflected broader concerns that have surrounded the music industry for years, with many artists calling for greater transparency over how streaming royalties are divided between record labels, publishers, distributors and performers.

The resurfaced interview has once again reignited online discussion about whether artists receive a fair share of streaming revenue, even though Snoop's original comments were made nearly three years ago.

Spotify Rejected the Underpayment Claims

Spotify disputed Snoop's allegations after the interview, saying the figures did not accurately represent how royalty payments work.

'We can't speak to endorsement deals for Web3 companies but... $45K for a billion streams? It's well documented that a billion streams on Spotify generates millions of dollars to rights holders,' a company spokesperson said.

The company explained that Spotify pays royalties to rights holders, including record labels, publishers and distributors, before artists receive their share under the terms of their individual agreements.

'It's unfortunate to hear that Spotify's payments didn't make it through to Snoop,' the spokesperson added.

Spotify also noted that Snoop had since become the owner of Death Row Records, suggesting he would be better positioned to receive revenue from music he controls directly.

Snoop Dogg Later Reached Peace With Spotify

The disagreement was ultimately resolved in 2025 after Snoop held discussions with Spotify executives about how royalties move through the music business.

Snoop later said the meetings gave him 'understanding and clarity' about the streaming payment process. He explained that his frustration was directed more broadly at the economics of the streaming industry rather than Spotify alone.

The rapper also credited the conversations with helping both sides reach what he described as a 'meeting of the minds'. His business partner, Larry Jackson, helped facilitate the discussions with Spotify executives.

The reconciliation was reflected in Snoop's decision to release his album Iz It a Crime? on Spotify in May 2025, signalling that the public dispute had come to an end.