The conversation about reforming UK streaming economics has been one of the most sustained policy debates in the music industry over the past five years. The 2021 DCMS Select Committee inquiry kicked off a multi-year process of investigation, advocacy, regulatory engagement, and voluntary industry adjustment. The conversation has produced real progress alongside continuing frustrations. This piece walks through what’s happened since the original inquiry, with focus on the ICO and CMA contributions, the government’s user-centric position, and the industry’s voluntary moves.
The original DCMS inquiry
The 2020-21 DCMS Select Committee inquiry, “Economics of Music Streaming”, was the trigger event for the broader reform conversation. The inquiry’s report, published in July 2021, made several findings:
- The streaming model has produced industry growth but has not delivered proportionate income for many working artists.
- The structural splits between master and publishing sides have left songwriters disproportionately disadvantaged.
- Major-label dominance and the contractual structures around streaming income create barriers to a fair distribution.
- The industry’s voluntary efforts to address these issues have been insufficient.
- Government intervention may be necessary if voluntary action doesn’t produce sufficient progress.
The committee’s recommendations included regulatory investigation by the CMA, support for songwriter income reform, transparency improvements, and potential legislative action.
The CMA review
The Competition and Markets Authority opened a market study into music streaming in late 2021, examining whether the streaming market is functioning competitively for artists, songwriters, and consumers. The CMA’s market study findings, published in 2022-23, provided detailed analysis of:
- The market structure and the dominant positions of major labels and major streaming platforms.
- The contractual structures between artists and labels, between labels and streaming platforms.
- The bargaining power dynamics across the value chain.
- The income distribution patterns that result.
The CMA’s conclusions were measured. The authority did not find clear competition law breaches that would justify formal action; it identified structural concerns that warranted continued attention; it called for improved transparency and ongoing market monitoring rather than immediate regulatory intervention.
The CMA’s findings disappointed some campaigners who had hoped for stronger formal action; the CMA’s professional analysis nonetheless documented many of the structural concerns and provided an evidence base for continuing reform discussion.
The ICO inquiry
The Information Commissioner’s Office examined data and transparency issues in the streaming market through 2023-25. The ICO’s focus was on:
- How streaming platforms collect, use, and monetise user data.
- The data flows that determine streaming royalty distribution.
- Whether the data practices comply with UK GDPR and related regulations.
- The transparency requirements affecting both consumers and rights-holders.
The ICO’s reports identified specific transparency improvements needed and provided guidance on best practice. The ICO did not find systematic legal breaches but did identify areas where industry practice could be improved.
The government’s user-centric position
Through 2024-25, the UK government developed and articulated a position on user-centric streaming distribution. The user-centric model would allocate each user’s subscription specifically to the artists that user listened to, rather than pooling subscriptions across all platform listening (the current pro-rata model).
The government’s position has supported user-centric in principle while leaving implementation to the industry. The voluntary nature of the implementation reflects the government’s preference for market-led solutions rather than legislative imposition; it also reflects the operational complexity of switching from pro-rata to user-centric, which would require platform-wide changes affecting all rights-holders.
As of 2026, no major streaming platform has fully adopted user-centric, although Deezer launched a user-centric option in 2023 and several other platforms have made adjustments toward user-centric principles in specific contexts.
The industry’s voluntary moves
The industry has undertaken various voluntary measures during the reform conversation period.
Increased transparency reporting. Major streaming platforms have improved their reporting to artists and labels about play counts, geographic distribution, and other metrics that affect royalty calculations.
Songwriter-focused initiatives. Spotify launched Spotify for Songwriters with credit display features and writer-specific tools. Apple Music has implemented improved credit display. Various platforms have committed to better songwriter recognition.
Improved royalty rate adjustments. Some platforms have adjusted their per-stream royalty calculations in ways that, on average, slightly increase what reaches songwriters and small rights-holders.
Anti-fraud measures. Platforms have improved their detection and removal of streaming fraud (covered separately in this hub), which protects artists from having their royalties diluted by fake streams from bots and click farms.
Fan-engagement features. Platforms have launched features that strengthen the connection between specific listeners and specific artists, addressing some of the concerns about pro-rata distribution diluting the value of dedicated fanbases.
Direct artist support tools. Various platforms have launched tools that allow artists to monetise direct fan engagement: ticketing integration, merchandise integration, and direct fan support features.
What hasn’t happened
Several reforms advocated through the period have not been implemented at scale.
Substantial structural reform of the master-publishing split. The fundamental 70/30 master-publishing split has not changed substantially. Reform conversations continue but the structural change advocated by songwriter organisations has not been implemented.
Mandatory user-centric streaming. No legislation has imposed user-centric streaming on the industry. Voluntary moves have been partial.
Mandatory minimum royalty rates. Various proposals for minimum per-stream rates or guaranteed songwriter income floors have not been implemented.
Major-label catalogue concentration limits. The structural concentration of master rights in major-label hands has not been addressed by mandatory divestiture or competitive intervention.
Streaming fraud regulation. The various streaming fraud schemes have been addressed by platform-led initiatives rather than regulatory intervention.
Where the conversation stands in 2026
In 2026, the streaming reform conversation has matured but remains ongoing. The current state:
- The voluntary industry moves have produced incremental improvements without fundamental structural change.
- The regulatory environment has produced documentation and pressure without formal enforcement action.
- Songwriter and artist advocacy continues, with attention shifting to specific implementation details and platform-by-platform negotiations.
- The conversation has moved partly from “is there a problem” (broadly accepted) to “what specific reforms work” (still contested).
- International coordination on streaming reform has increased, with the UK conversation linked to similar debates in the US, EU, and other major markets.
What’s likely next
The reform conversation will continue. Several specific developments are likely:
Continued voluntary industry adjustment, with the most active platforms making incremental changes that reduce some of the structural concerns.
Possible legislative action if voluntary progress is judged insufficient. The threshold for legislation has not been clearly defined.
Continued regulatory engagement through the CMA’s market monitoring and the ICO’s data oversight.
Cross-border coordination as similar reforms are debated in other major markets. UK regulators may follow or lead specific international developments.
Platform-by-platform negotiation as labels and streaming platforms renegotiate their licensing agreements. The next major round of negotiations will determine whether the structural splits change.
The principle
The 2024-26 streaming reform conversation has produced real progress without the fundamental structural change that some campaigners hoped for. The progress has been substantial in transparency, anti-fraud measures, and platform-led songwriter initiatives. The progress has been limited in the structural splits and the per-stream income for many working artists.
For working musicians and writers, the conversation matters because the outcomes affect long-term income. Engaging with the advocacy organisations, monitoring platform changes, and contributing to the policy conversation are all worthwhile activities. The reforms that succeed will be those that combine industry engagement, regulatory pressure, and political will across the multi-year timeline that structural reform requires.
Add Music.co.uk as a preferred source on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search.