Spotify does not want you to sell your own data: the business that angered the streaming giant.
Spotify has been building its identity around a valuable yet controversial asset: user data. Their personalized playlists, like Discover Weekly, depend on these data, as well as the global phenomenon of . However, the company did not expect some of these users to try to turn the tables and monetize their own music listening history.
This is what happened with Unwrapped, a collective of over 18,000 users who found a willing buyer in the startup Vana. Vana specializes in helping people sell their data directly to companies interested in training artificial intelligence models. In this case, the data offered was the users’ music preferences and listening habits recorded on Spotify.
The Operation: Nearly Unanimous “Yes”
The decision was made democratically through a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). According to Ars Technica, over 10,000 members voted, with an overwhelming 99.5% in favor of the sale.
Ultimately, the data on favorite artists and consumption habits were acquired by Solo AI, a company that promotes itself as a music platform driven by artificial intelligence. The price: $55,000 for the complete package, which was distributed among the participants in the form of cryptocurrency tokens.
The individual benefit was rather symbolic: about $5 per person. Beyond profitability, the experience served as a “proof of concept”: users can claim and negotiate with their own data.
Criticism: Between Ethics and Utility
The experiment did not go unnoticed by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The digital rights-focused NGO warns that selling your own data does not solve the underlying problem: the power imbalance between large platforms like Spotify and individuals who are constantly surveilled.
According to the EFF, these small payments do not represent a fairer exchange, but rather reproduce the same dynamics as always in a different package. The main concern is that users end up sharing intimate data for minimal amounts, without reducing the control that companies already have over the information.
Naturally, Spotify did not take long to react. The company pointed out that the Unwrapped project violated their developer policies, which expressly prohibit the use of Spotify data to train artificial intelligence models.
A company spokesperson told Ars Technica:
“Spotify respects the privacy rights of our users, including the right to data portability. Anyone can request a copy of their personal information to use as they wish. That said, UnwrappedData.org violates our Developer Terms by collecting, aggregating, and selling Spotify user data to third parties.”
In other words, users have the right to download their data, but not to resell it as raw material for external businesses.
Hypocrisy or Business Defense?
Spotify’s stance . The platform has turned its massive database into the cornerstone of its business model, from personalized advertising to designing playlists that encourage long listening sessions.
However, its advertising division has yet to take off. According to Business Insider, only 11% of the company’s revenue comes from data-based ads, far from the 20% target they had set. In other words: Spotify has also not found the perfect formula to monetize its digital treasure.
This makes the backlash against Unwrapped seem, to some, more like a matter of defending corporate territory than protecting user privacy.
The case opens up a much broader discussion: should users have the right to economically benefit from their own data? Initiatives like Unwrapped point in that direction, albeit with modest benefits.
The reality is that, while big tech companies build empires with personal information, users only see a fraction of that value. The experiment with Spotify shows that there is interest in reconsidering the data ownership model, but also that companies will do everything possible to maintain exclusive control.
On the horizon, this tension promises to grow as artificial intelligence increasingly demands more data to train models, and users wonder if they will continue to be simple passive providers or if they can claim a piece of the pie.
