Drake files federal lawsuit against UMG for defamation over promotion of Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’

Drake is moving forward with his legal battle against his own record label and filed a federal lawsuit against Universal Music Group for defamation, alleging that it spread a “false and malicious narrative” when it promoted Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.”

The Canadian rapper, whose real name is Aubrey Drake Graham, filed the 81-page lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Universal Music Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Both Drake and Lamar are signed to UMG but under different divisions — Drake under Republic Records and Lamar under Interscope.

The lawsuit reiterates some of the claims Drake made in a petition filed in November against UMG when he accused the music corporation of conspiring to “artificially inflate” Lamar’s “Not Like Us” on Spotify by using pay-to-play schemes, bots and other tactics.

Lamar released the song over the summer amid a monthslong feud with Drake.

“UMG’s campaign went well beyond the traditional music company playbook — indeed, UMG has unleashed every weapon in its arsenal, including, on information and belief, certain practices that are unlawful,” Wednesday’s lawsuit states.

It alleges that UMG offered “financial incentives” to third parties to stream the song and promote it without disclosing the payments to the public. The label also removed copyright restrictions which allowed content creators to play the song in their videos, according to the lawsuit.

It further alleges that UMG used “bots” to play the song and boost its popularity.

The suit says that the false allegations in the song and UMG’s decision to promote it led to “real world consequences” for Drake. On May 7, an armed group of assailants drove to Drake’s Toronto home and at least one gunman allegedly opened fire, wounding a security guard, according to the suit.

The next day, a different intruder allegedly used his bare hands to dig a hole under the home’s security fence. Guards at the property caught the trespasser, the suit says. Another break-in attempt happened at the home on May 9, according to the lawsuit.

“In the two decades leading up to May of 2024, although Drake was constantly in the public eye, nothing remotely like these events had ever happened to him or his family. But these events were not coincidental,” the suit says. “They immediately followed, and were proximately caused by, UMG’s actions leading up to and on May 4, 2024.”

Drake tried to resolve things with UMG privately, the suit says, but the company “refused to do anything to help” and said he would “face humiliation” if he sought legal action.

The suit says that UMG promoted the song because the label knew that the more it was streamed and played, the more money UMG and its executives would make. The company also knew that Drake’s contract was nearing the end and extending it would be costly, the suit says.

“By devaluing Drake’s music and brand, UMG would gain leverage to force Drake to sign a new deal on terms more favorable to UMG,” it states.

According to the lawsuit, Drake now fears for the safety of himself and his family and had to pull his son out of his elementary school due to safety concerns. The rapper has also suffered financial harm, the suit says.

Drake makes it clear in the lawsuit that he is not going after Lamar. His legal team at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP said the rapper’s suit is intended “to hold UMG accountable for knowingly promoting false and defamatory allegations against him.”

“Beginning on May 4, 2024 and every day since, UMG has used its massive resources as the world’s most powerful music company to elevate a dangerous and inflammatory message that was designed to assassinate Drake’s character, and led to actual violence at Drake’s doorstep,” his attorneys said in a statement. “UMG wants the public to believe that this is a fight between artists, but this lawsuit is not brought against Kendrick Lamar. This lawsuit reveals the human and business consequences to UMG’s elevation of profits over the safety and well-being of its artists, and shines a light on the manipulation of artists and the public for corporate gain.”