Artists, fans, and commentators have all responded exceptionally strongly to Daniel Ek’s recent expansion of his participation with defense AI through his venture capital firm, Prima Materia. The main focus of the dispute is Helsing SE, a German defense technology firm that creates AI-systems for the battlefield, such as sensor integration, real-time data processing, and autonomous drones, to support military decision-making. As chairman and principal investor, Ek pushed Helsing to raise €600 million in a capital round in the middle of 2025. Given Spotify’s status as a cultural platform, many people consider this to be a highly provocative move.
In a clear protest against what they perceive as a moral dilemma—music streaming that supports the financial foundation of AI weapons technology—indie artists like Deerhoof, Xiu Xiu, and King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard have removed their archives from Spotify. Specifically, Deerhoof said: “We don’t want our music killing people.” Their remarks, which are in line with growing public scrutiny of tech executives’ investments in military weapons, are not only impassioned but also well-timed.
Daniel Ek / Spotify CEO – Profile Summary
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Name | Daniel Ek |
| Role | Co‑founder and CEO of Spotify; Chairman of Helsing |
| Investment Firm | Prima Materia |
| Defense AI Company | Helsing SE (Germany) |
| Recent Funding Led | €600 million funding round via Prima Materia for Helsing |
| Ethical Concern | Use of AI for military decisions, battle drones, sensor data |
| Key Critics | Indie bands like Deerhoof, Xiu Xiu, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard |
| Regulation Relevance | EU AI Act, ESG responsibilities, artist/consumer backlash |
Defense tech companies like Helsing are becoming more strategically significant as European countries increase their defense spending due to geopolitical tension, wars like the one in Ukraine, and worries about autonomy. According to Helsing, its software tools provide commanders with real-time situational awareness by analyzing data from drones, synthetic aperture radar, and various sensors. Additionally, it has begun manufacturing its own hardware, including the HX-2 drone model.
But Helsing is being criticized. Software bugs and expensive drones have drawn criticism from observers. Given the delicate nature of the field, several critics contend that there is not enough transparency around the deployment and sale of the technology. For civil society and regulatory organizations working to prevent the abuse of dual-use AI, this scrutiny is especially helpful. Expectations about the level of accountability that tech leadership must tolerate are also being drastically altered.
In essence, the controversy surrounding this issue is not limited to a single business or investment; rather, it represents a larger change in the way that social responsibility and tech leadership are perceived. Artists who previously thought that their work could be separated from platform executives’ ownership or interests are now calling for greater synergy. They want platforms to make sure that the values of artists are not at odds with the outside endeavors of executives. This indicates that producers have a noticeably higher level of ethical awareness.
Dual-use systems are subject to increased regulatory scrutiny under the European Union’s AI laws (AI Act). Systems with military or quasi-military uses will be subject to more regulations, particularly those pertaining to accountability, openness, and safety. The Helsing case comes as EU members are gradually implementing regulatory enforcement. For Spotify, this entails not only reputational risk but also possible legal danger, particularly if governments or investors claim that certain aspects of the business’s operations or leadership investments are against new regulations.
So far, Spotify’s defense has focused on keeping its streaming business and Ek’s investment endeavors apart. Helsing does not function under Spotify, and Prima Materia is architecturally different from Spotify. However, when profits from one business increase the profile or wealth of the same person who operates the platform, many critics feel that structural separation is less significant. This is viewed as indirect complicity by many artists.
According to some of Helsing’s leadership, the organization’s goals are defensive rather than aggressive: protecting against invasions and outside threats, ensuring sovereignty, and assisting democratic states. In its product descriptions, the corporation stresses human oversight over completely autonomous, deadly AI judgments. Transparency and stringent export regulations are part of its commitment, according to its co-CEO, Torsten Reil. These pledges are especially energizing to supporters; they seem like ethical minimalism without enough protections to doubters.
The fact that public opinion has already changed is one particularly noteworthy finding. Prima Materia’s involvement sparked protests before to Hélsing’s 2021 funding round, but many European investors and public seem more inclined to accept defense technology as an essential component of national security now that Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Although still up for debate, formerly taboo investments are now more acceptable due to the urgency of the fight. Even while the economic impact on Spotify is currently small in comparison to the volume of streaming, the backlash among artists is nevertheless very significant.
This scandal offers Spotify options as well as obstacles. On the one hand, artist departures put the integrity of the platform at jeopardy, particularly for independent producers who might have felt excluded in the past. Some artist-profit issues have been addressed by Spotify’s “Loud & Clear” effort and recurring royalty disclosure reports, although these do not often allay deeper concerns about moral leadership. However, Spotify has the opportunity to set a new benchmark: openness regarding CEO investments, explicit artist disclosures, and possibly even opt-in or opt-out procedures for artists who do not want their work to be featured on platforms associated with defense tech investments.
Daniel Ek’s story may serve as a barometer for tech leadership. It demonstrates how perceptions of brand integrity can be influenced by CEO conduct even when it is not directly related to the daily product roadmap. Investors, staff members, and other external stakeholders examine a leader’s investment in contentious areas such as military artificial intelligence. They also look at the leader’s personal ethics, public disclosures, and value alignment. This trend is probably going to get worse.