Drake Copyright Claim Withdrawn as Judge Tosses Lawsuit Over Alleged Fake Streams

Drake appears in a scene from the official music video for “Janice STFU.” A songwriter who accused the rapper of copying the song's chorus has withdrawn his federal copyright lawsuit. The dismissal came four days after a judge rejected a separate lawsuit alleging Spotify allowed fraudulent streams of Drake's music. (Drake/YouTube)

Two Drake-related legal disputes have ended in federal court within four days, derailing a copyright claim over one of his biggest hits and a lawsuit accusing Spotify of allowing bots to inflate billions of streams of his music.

Neither case produced a ruling on whether the underlying allegations were true. And while Drake was a defendant in the copyright case, he was never sued in the Spotify dispute.

The latest development came Tuesday, when songwriter and producer Aviel Calev Hirschfield withdrew his lawsuit accusing Drake of stealing the chorus of “Janice STFU,” the chart-topping single from his “Iceman” album.

Hirschfield filed the case Oct. 16 against Drake, OVO Sound and two Universal Music companies. Eleven days later, his attorneys submitted a two-page notice dismissing the entire action without prejudice.

The filing offered no explanation. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Hirschfield remains free to bring the claims again.

The producer, who shares a songwriting credit with Drake on Beyoncé's “Heated,” alleged that he recorded the chorus in January over an instrumental supplied by producers FnZ, then sent it to people in Drake's circle.

READ THE COURT RECORDS

Two unrelated federal cases involving Drake's music ended four days apart. Read the filings behind the rulings.

Copyright case: Notice of dismissal (PDF) Oct. 27, 2026 | 2 pages

Spotify case: Federal judge's order (PDF) Oct. 23, 2026 | 16 pages

Hirschfield said he was stunned when the song was released in May and he heard what he believed was his work, performed without credit or compensation.

His complaint described the similarities as nearly exact. A recording purported to be his original demo later circulated online, with his legal representative confirming to Pitchfork that it matched an exhibit in the case.

Questions about the recording's origins and timeline followed. Hirschfield's representatives maintained that experts had examined the recording's metadata and found it legitimate.

Drake's representatives rejected the accusations, calling them a “manufactured and baseless attempt” to exploit his name. They maintained that Drake wrote the song and had no connection to Hirschfield.

The case ended before a court could examine the competing accounts.

The other dismissal came Friday in a separate lawsuit filed by West Coast rapper RBX, whose real name is Eric Dwayne Collins.

The Death Row Records veteran had accused Spotify of failing to stop artificial streaming that he alleged diverted royalties from legitimate rights holders.

Drake's official video for "Janice STFU," released May 15, 2026. (Drake/YouTube)

His complaint singled out Drake's catalog, alleging that a substantial portion of approximately 37 billion Spotify streams over a 48-month period was generated by automated accounts.

RBX estimated that streaming fraud had diverted at least $600 million in royalties from music rights holders. Those figures were allegations, not findings by the court, and Drake was not named as a defendant.

The case challenged Spotify's royalty system, which distributes revenue according to each recording's share of streams. Under that arrangement, artificially inflated numbers for one artist could reduce the share available to others.

But U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton found that RBX had failed to establish the legal grounds necessary to hold Spotify responsible.

The judge ruled that the commercial relationship between the rapper and streaming company did not create the special duty of protection necessary for his negligence claim.

She also rejected his arguments that Spotify deceptively or unfairly enforced its anti-fraud policies. RBX had not identified a specific rule that Spotify applied selectively, the judge found, or established the consumer or competitor harm necessary to support his claims under California law.

Staton had dismissed the lawsuit once before, in June, while allowing RBX to revise his complaint. This time, she concluded another amendment would be futile and dismissed the claims with prejudice.

The ruling prevents RBX from simply refiling the same claims in that court, although an appeal remains possible.

“We are reviewing the order, but an appeal is likely,” attorney Mark Pifko told Rolling Stone.

Spotify has denied benefiting from fraudulent streaming and says it uses detection systems, royalty withholding and financial penalties to combat the practice.

The ruling did not determine whether any of Drake's streams were fraudulent.