Is Your Spotify Subscription Funding War?

Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek recently sparked an uproar by having his private fund, Prima Materia, lead a €600 million investment in Helsing – a German defense-tech startup specializing in AI for warfare. Helsing, now valued at roughly €12 billion, builds software and autonomous hardware (drones, aircraft, naval vehicles) for military use. In the wake of this deal, indie rock band Deerhoof announced it will pull its entire catalog from Spotify. In their statement they wrote, “We don’t want our music killing people. We don’t want our success being tied to AI battle tech.”. This move highlights deep ethical questions about streaming platforms. In this article, we’ll unpack Spotify’s Helsing investment, Deerhoof’s history and values, past Spotify controversies (artist pay and content disputes), and the fallout for artists, fans, and the company.

Spotify’s Investment in Helsing

Last month, reports revealed that Ek’s fund Prima Materia led a €600 million funding round in Helsing. Helsing is a Munich-based AI defense startup founded in 2021 by ex–video game executive Torsten Reil and others. The new injection of cash makes Helsing one of Europe’s most valuable private companies (around €12 billion). Ek himself became chairman of Helsing after an earlier €100 million donation in late 2021. In announcing the latest round, Ek said he was “doubling down” on the investment even as Hungary and Germany beef up their defense budgets. Helsing says the funds will accelerate its product development and expansion across Europe.

Importantly, Ek’s investment comes amid rising geopolitical tensions (e.g. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine). Helsing’s mission is to give democracies an AI edge: they promise never to sell to regimes like Russia or North Korea. But critics argue the ethics aren’t about which side gets the tech, but whether a music platform should be connected to weapons development at all.

Helsing: An “Operating System for Warfare”

Helsing’s technology ingests battlefield data much like a video game engine. For example, Wired describes seeing a live demo: the AI platform “absorbs huge amounts of data” from every sensor and weapons system on the battlefield (drones, tanks, satellites, radars, etc.), and distills it into a real-time, video-game-style map. A sensor blip becomes a dot on the map that officers can interrogate instantly to identify threats. In short, Helsing is building an “operating system” for modern warfare – a unified dashboard so that soldiers on the ground and commanders at HQ see the same information. The company already claims contracts with the German, French, and British militaries, and is expanding into AI-controlled drones, piloted aircraft systems (“Centaur” AI co-pilots), and even unmanned submarines. In other words, Helsing is on the cutting edge of autonomous weapons and surveillance tech.

Deerhoof: Indie Icons with Principles

Deerhoof is an American indie-rock band formed in San Francisco in 1994. Over more than 25 years they’ve released 20+ critically acclaimed albums, blending punk, pop, and experimental sounds. The band has long prided itself on a DIY ethic and anti-corporate stance. As they put it in their statement, “We are a small mom & pop who have carved out a musical niche for ourselves and we aren’t capitalists, and we don’t wish to take over the world.”. They emphasize community over profits: if “the price of ‘discoverability’ is letting oligarchs fill the globe with computerized weaponry,” Deerhoof say, “we’ll pass”. This worldview helps explain why the news of Ek’s armaments investment hit them so hard.

In recent years Deerhoof have championed social causes and maintained creative control over their work. They were one of the first bands to insist fans wear masks at concerts during Covid. As veteran indie musicians, they’re sensitive to how platform economics affect smaller artists. Their label (Joyful Noise) echoes this: it stresses that streaming royalties are too low and encourages fans to buy music directly to support artists. In short, Deerhoof values artistic integrity and ethical consistency – especially compared to big tech profit motives.

Deerhoof’s Spotify Boycott: Reasons & Reaction

On June 30, 2025, Deerhoof announced it will remove all their music from Spotify. Their public statement (shared via social media) made clear why they’re leaving: Ek’s $700 million investment in battle AI. Quoting the statement: “Daniel Ek uses $700 million of his Spotify fortune to become chairman of [an] AI battle tech company” – “not a headline we enjoyed reading this week”. The band went on: “We don’t want our music killing people. We don’t want our success being tied to AI battle tech.”. They explicitly criticize Spotify’s role, calling it a “widely hated data-mining scam masquerading as a music company” that is “creepy for users and crappy for artists.”. In other words, Deerhoof condemns both the investment and Spotify’s exploitative streaming model.

Joyful Noise, Deerhoof’s label, fully backed the move. In a statement, the label urged fans to support artists by buying music directly. They noted that since Spotify’s launch, musicians have been forced to “gladly use [streaming] deals to survive” even as the platform took huge cuts. The label said it wants to “serve the artist, not build a stock portfolio,” echoing the band’s values.

Notably, Deerhoof’s decision was not made lightly: they admitted that ditching Spotify hurts financially. But they felt it was “clearly the right decision.” In summary, Deerhoof’s public reasoning is twofold: they object morally to their art funding military AI, and they object economically to Spotify’s business practices. They intend to keep their music available on other platforms and to continue releasing new work, but simply not via Spotify.

Past Spotify Controversies: Payouts and Podcasts

Deerhoof’s protest comes against a backdrop of growing ethical scrutiny of Spotify. The platform has faced repeated criticism over artist compensation and content choices. On the pay side, musicians long complain that streaming royalties are minuscule. Studies and surveys find many artists dissatisfied: one 2024 survey reported ~69% of musicians unhappy with streaming payouts. (Spotify claims it sent over $10 billion in royalties in 2024, but that still amounts to fractions of a cent per play.) Spotify’s “Loud & Clear” reports tout big totals, but third-party analyses (e.g. Duetti) show other services pay 2–3× more per stream on average. In protest, some songwriters even boycotted Spotify-sponsored events, and unions like UMAW have lambasted Spotify as paying artists “$0” per stream.

Another sore point has been Spotify’s policies and playlists. In 2019, it introduced Discovery Mode, letting artists pay for promotional placement by sacrificing 30% of royalties. Critics immediately likened this to payola or bribery. Although Spotify argues it’s just another promotional tool, many indie labels complained that only big players can afford such cuts.

On content, the biggest flashpoint was The Joe Rogan Experience. In 2022, Rogan aired COVID-19 misinformation episodes that outraged public health advocates. Folk-rock legend Neil Young publicly demanded Spotify choose between his music and Rogan. When Spotify refused to ban Rogan’s content, Young famously removed his catalog from the service. Joni Mitchell and the band Crosby, Stills & Nash joined the protest, pulling their music as well. (India.Arie did the same later that year.) Spotify eventually agreed to label podcast content with medical advisories, and by 2024 Young and Mitchell had quietly returned their music to the platform. But the incident left lasting bad will: it underscored Spotify’s struggle to balance profit (licensing Rogan’s exclusive $100M deal) with public responsibility.

In sum, Spotify has a history of ethical flashpoints: from Taylor Swift temporarily withholding her hits in 2014 over free-tier pay (she cited not wanting to be “experimented on”) to the ongoing low-pay debate and high-profile content boycotts. Deerhoof’s case adds a new dimension: it’s not about disinformation or pay—it’s about a CEO’s outside investment in warfare. But it taps into the same concerns: What values are served by our streaming dollars?

Industry Reactions and Ethical Questions

Many in the music community cheered Deerhoof’s stance. For example, German techno artist Skee Mask tweeted that he wouldn’t give “his last penny” to Spotify, accusing it of preferring “the development of warfare instead of actual progression in the music business”. Brooklyn drummer Sameer Gupta echoed this sentiment, noting “all that money that’s being taken from artists and musicians is being funneled to this” – a use of funds no artist signed onto. Even a Dutch label (playfully called Kalahari Oyster Cult) announced it would remove hundreds of tracks, saying it refuses to let its music “benefit a platform led by someone backing tools of war, surveillance and violence.” These voices link Deerhoof’s protest to older critiques about Spotify underpaying artists while enriching billionaire executives.

So far Spotify itself has said very little. CEO Ek has defended his move, framing it as “necessary” for Europe’s security. In interviews he insisted he’s “100 percent convinced this is the right thing for Europe” and isn’t afraid of criticism. Helsing (the company) has simply thanked investors and said the money will speed up product development. Crucially, Spotify the platform has not issued a public statement on Deerhoof’s boycott or the Helsink deal.

What are the implications? For artists, the incident underscores a dilemma: do musicians have a responsibility to factor corporate practices into their distribution decisions? Independent acts like Deerhoof can afford (for now) to make a moral stand, but most artists lack that luxury. Many depend on Spotify’s reach to make a living; one wag on Twitter noted that while Deerhoof “can afford to do this, we have too many artists who won’t get paid” if streaming services collapse. The Deerhoof case may encourage other ethically-minded bands to speak up or find alternate platforms (Bandcamp, Tidal, buying directly) if they disagree with where the money goes. It could also spur labels to pressure Spotify for more transparency or revenue-sharing.

For listeners and fans, the news provokes questions: Does my subscription fee indirectly fund weapons? Would I leave Spotify if I believed it did? Already some fans are sharing #CancelSpotify posts, and industry watchers note that a mix of controversies (Rogan, royalies, defensive investments) could drive a small churn in paid subscribers. However, it’s not clear how widespread that will be: Spotify still dominates streaming globally, and many casual users may not switch platforms over these issues alone.

As for Spotify’s brand, this adds one more smear to a growing list. The company has built its image on being artist-friendly, but is now painted by critics as “flushing itself down the toilet”. The optics of a music platform whose CEO backs lethal AI make for terrible PR among progressive audiences. Wall Street hasn’t reacted dramatically (Spotify’s stock remains volatile for broader reasons), but reputationally the company risks alienating some artists and fans who care about “political economics” of tech. This could amplify calls for regulatory action (e.g. in the U.S. a proposed “living wage for musicians” law was already floated earlier in 2024), and it might encourage rivals or new startups positioning themselves as more ethical alternatives.

Below is a comparison table summarizing how various artists and groups have responded to major Spotify controversies:

Controversy	Notable Artists / Groups	Actions Taken (Year)
Daniel Ek’s AI defense investment	Deerhoof (art-rock band); others (e.g. Leah Senior, Dr Sure’s Unusual Practice, Kalahari label)	Withdrew or withheld all music (June 2025). Publicly announced boycott.
Joe Rogan COVID-19 misinformation	Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Crosby, Stills & Nash, India.Arie	Removed music from Spotify (2022); Neil & Joni later returned (2024).
Streaming royalty disputes	Taylor Swift; many smaller artists/UMAW	Swift withdrew catalog (2014–17, returned 2017) over free-tier pay. Grassroots pressure, lobbying for higher rates.
Spotify playlist/payola policies	Indie labels/artists (e.g. Letters from Black Ships, UMAW)	Vocal criticism of “Discovery Mode” and payment model; no major catalog removal, but some releases delayed or negotiated offline.

What Do You Think?

Deerhoof’s bold stand raises thorny questions for everyone in music. Should artists refuse to work with platforms whose owners fund things they find immoral? If Spotify CEO Ek had invested in, say, renewable energy instead of defense, would fans view the company more favorably? Or is Spotify just a “neutral” delivery service whose backend investors shouldn’t matter to listeners and creators? If you were an independent artist, would you follow Deerhoof’s lead? And as a listener: will knowing where your streaming subscription goes affect your choices?

Feel free to share your thoughts below. Do you think Spotify’s leadership should be held accountable for outside investments? Have you ever considered leaving a streaming service on principle? What would you do if you learned your music stream was funding something you oppose? The debate goes beyond one band or one industry – it’s about how we value art and the means by which it’s delivered.