Spotify ceo giving money to war companies
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Daniel Ek, Spotify’s founder and CEO, has personally led a major funding round — via his investment firm Prima Materia — that helped raise roughly €600 million (reported as about $694–702 million) for Helsing, a German defence‑technology company focused on AI for drones, aircraft integrations and battlefield systems [1] [2] [3]. That private investment and Ek’s role on Helsing’s board have provoked artist withdrawals, boycott campaigns and claims that Spotify is “funding war,” but reporting shows the money came from Ek’s investment vehicle rather than Spotify’s corporate treasury, and some widely shared assertions about direct links to particular conflicts are disputed or fact‑checked by reporters [4] [5] [6].
1. What happened — the cash, the company, and the role of Prima Materia
In June 2025 Prima Materia, the venture firm co‑founded by Daniel Ek, led a €600 million funding round into Helsing, a Munich‑based defence AI company now publicized for building software for drones and integrating AI into military platforms; press accounts put the round at roughly €600 million and the dollar equivalent near $694–702 million, and note Ek will chair or take a senior role at Helsing [1] [2] [3].
2. What Helsing makes and why critics call it a “weapons” company
Reporting describes Helsing as developing AI for military surveillance, targeting, and systems that can be integrated into drones and aircraft — capabilities that critics characterize as “military AI” or “AI weapons,” which is the core of the ethical uproar among some musicians and activists [7] [8] [3].
3. The backlash: artists, boycotts, and reputation risk
After news of Ek’s lead role in the financing, multiple independent bands and some higher‑profile acts publicly removed catalogues from Spotify and called for subscription cancellations, framing the investment as morally incompatible with supporting the streaming service; outlets and advocacy groups tracked these withdrawals and boycott calls as a direct reaction to Ek’s investment [7] [9] [10] [4].
4. Defenders’ argument: strategic autonomy and tech leadership
Ek and supporters framed the investment as responding to “rapidly” changing security needs in Europe and the growing centrality of AI and autonomy to defence capability — a rationale recounted in investor and mainstream coverage that situates Helsing in a broader wave of venture funding for defence tech amid global conflicts [1] [2].
5. Where reporting diverges and where misinformation crept in
Independent fact‑checking and media analysis highlighted important distinctions that were blurred in public outrage: the funds were invested by Ek’s private firm, not Spotify itself; Helsing’s specific customers and battlefield uses were sometimes overstated in social posts; and some critics conflated Helsing’s work with particular wars, a linkage that detailed reporting found to be imprecise or unproven [5] [6].
6. The practical question fans ask — does Spotify money buy drones?
Documentation in available reporting indicates Ek’s involvement is through Prima Materia and private capital, not a corporate allocation from Spotify’s balance sheet; community posts and angry subscribers have alleged their subscription fees indirectly bankroll Ek’s moves, but the sources provided do not prove Spotify corporate funds or subscriber payments were routed into Helsing [11] [12] [5].
7. Bottom line: accountability, optics, and unanswered questions
Firmly established facts are that Daniel Ek via Prima Materia led a headline‑grabbing €600m round into Helsing and has taken a governance role, and that artists and activists have reacted with withdrawals and boycott demands [1] [7] [10]. What remains contested or unclear in reporting is the degree to which that private investment implicates Spotify operationally or financially, which specific defence customers Helsing serves, and how regulators or corporate governance at Spotify will respond as reputational pressure mounts [5] [4].