Drake’s conflict with Universal Music Group (UMG) has escalated significantly, as the Toronto rapper has initiated a second lawsuit against the music giant. This most recent legal move claims that UMG has engaged in defamation, building on previous accusations that the label participated in a “pay-to-play” arrangement with iHeartRadio to artificially elevate Kendrick Lamar’s contentious song, “Not Like Us,” on the radio.
The initial lawsuit, lodged merely days earlier in the New York State Supreme Court, alleged that UMG manipulated Spotify to enhance the song’s popularity, implying that its success was not purely a result of fan support. “Not Like Us,” a vibrant, anthemic diss track, explicitly targets Drake, alleging that he associates with “certified pedophiles” in his circle—a statement that has intensified an already fierce rivalry between the two musicians.
The track has emerged as a cultural sensation, breaking records with its prolonged dominance on the *Billboard* rap chart and surpassing 900 million streams on Spotify. It has also garnered five Grammy nominations, including one for its producer. Despite its achievements, Drake’s legal representatives contend that UMG neglected to act against what they characterize as defamatory content, especially significant considering that both Lamar and Drake are affiliated with labels under the UMG umbrella—Lamar with Interscope and Drake with Republic, in addition to his own OVO Sound.
UMG has vehemently rejected the allegations, deeming them “offensive and untrue.” In an official statement, the company maintained, “No amount of fabricated and ridiculous legal arguments in this pre-action submission can disguise the reality that fans select the music they wish to enjoy.” Spotify, on its part, has opted not to comment on the situation.
Drake’s legal submission on Monday does not constitute a complete lawsuit but rather acts as a request for evidence collection. This could pave the way for depositions from key individuals at UMG and iHeartRadio as Drake’s team attempts to validate their assertions. His attorneys allege there is “more than sufficient evidence” indicating that UMG prioritized financial benefits over safeguarding Drake’s reputation.
The timing of these legal maneuvers is notable, occurring mere days after the unexpected release of Lamar’s album *GNX*. The project has been characterized by *The Ringer*’s Charles Holmes as “a 45-minute exploration of the significance of attending your biggest adversary’s funeral to ensure they’ve left this earthly plane.” The album’s debut has only heightened public intrigue regarding the ongoing dispute.
Curiously, Lamar himself has not been implicated in any of the lawsuits. Instead, Drake’s filings concentrate on UMG’s purported favoritism, accusing the label of capitalizing on the rivalry between its two artists for financial gain at Drake’s expense.
As the situation develops, one fact remains evident: the conflict between Drake and UMG is far from resolved, and the implications—both reputational and financial—are at an unprecedented high.