What the Copyright Office wants to know about music streaming fraud

The U.S. Copyright Office wants evidence on how music streaming fraud works, how much money it diverts, how it connects to AI-generated music and what could stop it. It asked for that evidence in a notice of inquiry published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2026, after a request from a member of Congress. Initial comments are due by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on November 23, 2026, and reply comments by 11:59 p.m. on December 21. The notice proposes no rule: the Office says the comments, together with its own research, may contribute to Congress's understanding of the problem and of possible solutions.

What counts as streaming fraud

The Office uses a definition from the Music Fights Fraud Alliance, a group formed in 2023 so that distributors and streaming services could coordinate their efforts: “the illegitimate practice of using deceptive, inappropriate, or unpermitted methods to artificially increase the number of streams a song or album receives,” whether for notoriety, money or another benefit not otherwise obtained by legitimate means.

The notice lists the usual methods: bot farms, click farms, playlist stuffing and account hijacking, which it says are frequently carried out by unethical marketing companies. It also describes what it calls “copyright fraud”: claiming other people's original works, or uploading manipulated versions of their recordings as one's own, sometimes called “carbon copying” or “ghost tracking.”

Why fake plays cost real artists

Streaming services commonly set aside a percentage of their revenue as royalty pools, which are then used to pay rights holders, either directly or through distributors and collectives such as SoundExchange and the Mechanical Licensing Collective. Under this pro-rata system, the Office explains, the more a song is played, the more its rights holders receive. Inflating plays therefore diverts money from the owners of songs that were streamed legitimately.

The notice also lists knock-on harms: songs pushed down playlists and recommendation queues, distorted data that artists and venues use to decide when and where to tour, and fewer chances for fans to discover lesser-known artists. To show what is at stake, it cites industry revenue figures for 2025.

The notice does not give its own estimate of how much of that money is lost to fraud. Data on the current and projected economic impact is one of the things the Office is asking for.

Who asked, and why AI is part of it

The inquiry answers a letter of May 21, 2026, from Representative Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, to Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. He asked the Office to examine “the prevalence of streaming fraud across digital platforms and how it may be affecting the music industry as a whole,” and specifically the effects of AI-generated streaming fraud on the licensing and distribution of sound recording, performance and mechanical royalties.

Fitzgerald wrote that there is “nothing inherently wrong” with using AI as a creative tool, but that generative AI “can serve as a catalyst for criminals to perpetrate streaming fraud.” His letter cites Deezer's finding that up to 85% of the streams of fully AI-generated tracks in 2025 were fraudulent; for Deezer's own figures, see our report on its third quarter.

What is already being done

The Office lists publicly reported measures, which it calls illustrative rather than complete. Streaming services' own checks can include daily reviews of suspected artificial streams, looking at listening time, users' locations and how saves and follows compare with total streams, and some services fine the uploaders of artificially streamed songs. Distributors have added identity checks, trust and safety teams and “know your customer” rules, and some warn, close accounts or impose penalties. IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, has launched what the Office describes as a Streaming Integrity Initiative, and some in the industry have proposed replacing pro-rata payouts with artist- or user-centric models.

Prosecutors have acted too. The notice describes the case of Michael Smith, a North Carolina musician charged in the Southern District of New York in September 2024, who created thousands of bot accounts to stream hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs he had uploaded and, in the notice's words, “fraudulently collected some $10 million in royalties.” He pleaded guilty in March 2026 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the Office says. It also notes a prison sentence for a man in Denmark.

The ten questions

The notice asks commenters for information and data on:

1. How fraud is carried out, and how common bot farms, click farms, playlist manipulation and fraudulent marketing companies are
2. Industry policies or practices that may be contributing to it without meaning to
3. Its current and projected economic impact
4. Its relationship to AI-generated music and to royalties for musical works and sound recordings
5. Its effects on live music, including venue choice, ticket sales and spending on food, drink, merchandise and parking
6. Which anti-fraud methods work, from trusted distributors and verification to royalty clawbacks, fines and takedowns, and how vendors are used
7. How ownership and usage data could help, such as shared fraud databases, suspicious-activity reports, metadata standards and labels for content not eligible for statutory royalties
8. Voluntary, statutory or regulatory fixes, including no-fault injunctions and changes to information-sharing rules
9. Criminal enforcement, including at state and local level, and the use of streaming fraud by organized crime
10. Any other recommendations for Congress

How to comment

Comments are filed through regulations.gov, under docket number 2026-6, with instructions on the Office's music streaming fraud page. The Office uses the system for both submitting and posting public comments. People who cannot file electronically can contact the Office for special instructions. The notice gives no date for the Office's response to Congress.