Drake’s federal lawsuit against Universal Music Group (“UMG”) represents a clash between a globally recognized artist and one of the music industry’s most powerful labels. It raises questions about defamation, business ethics, and the obligations of record labels toward their artists. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit accuses UMG of defaming Drake by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us and spreading a “false and malicious narrative” that allegedly caused reputational harm and tangible security threats.[i]
This lawsuit follows months of escalating tensions between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, marked by a series of diss tracks exchanged between the two artists. Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us takes direct aim at Drake, accusing him of predatory behavior and challenging his credibility in the rap industry.
Both Drake and Kendrick Lamar are signed to UMG, though under separate divisions—Drake with Republic Records and Kendrick Lamar with Interscope. According to the lawsuit, UMG promoted Not Like Us in bad faith, using pay-to-play schemes, bots, and undisclosed financial incentives to inflate its streaming metrics.[ii] Drake also alleges that UMG removed copyright restrictions on the song, allowing broader dissemination via content creators on social media.[iii]These actions, he claims, violated transparency norms and New York business law.[iv]
Drake’s allegations hinge on speculative assertions about UMG’s intent and its connection to his alleged harm. While he paints a picture of corporate scheming, the actions he describes—aggressively promoting music and allocating resources to high-profile artists—are standard practices in the music industry. Labels prioritize projects based on potential return on investment, and promoting a diss track by a commercially successful artist like Kendrick Lamar does not inherently signal malice toward Drake.
The lawsuit builds upon earlier legal actions, including pre-suit petitions in Texas and New York.[v] These petitions alleged that UMG worked with iHeartMedia and Spotify to artificially inflate the success of Not Like Us and generate massive revenues.[vi] Drake suggests these efforts were aimed at devaluing his brand as his UMG contract neared expiration, giving the label leverage to renegotiate under more favorable terms.[vii] While this theory aligns with narratives of corporate manipulation, it lacks concrete proof. UMG’s actions—promoting one artist’s work while managing others—are more plausibly explained as routine business decisions rather than an intentional campaign to undermine Drake.
The defamation claim centers on the lyrics of Not Like Us, which Drake argues contain false statements amplified by UMG’s promotion.[viii] To succeed, Drake must prove the statements are false, harmful, and made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. However, the content of diss tracks is typically rhetorical and hyperbolic, a genre convention courts have long recognized as artistic expression. Listeners generally understand such lyrics as opinions rather than factual statements, making it difficult for Drake to establish that they are defamatory. Additionally, Drake’s attempt to hold UMG accountable for Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics conflates the role of the label with that of the artist. Labels are generally not responsible for the content their artists create.
Drake also links UMG’s promotion of the track to security incidents at his Toronto home in May, including a shooting and break-in attempts.[ix] While these events are alarming, the connection between UMG’s promotion of the song and criminal acts by third parties is tenuous. Establishing causation would require evidence that UMG’s actions directly incited these events, a claim Drake has yet to substantiate.
The accusations of pay-to-play schemes and bot usage further highlight the challenges in Drake’s case. While these practices may raise ethical questions, they are not inherently illegal. Drake has provided little evidence to suggest that UMG’s alleged actions violated specific laws. Similarly, the removal of copyright restrictions to facilitate broader use of Not Like Us on social media appears to be a modern marketing strategy rather than a malicious act. Such approaches align with industry norms, reflecting how labels adapt to digital platforms to maximize exposure.
Drake’s lawsuit also underscores broader concerns about the music industry’s transparency and fairness. If UMG did engage in undisclosed promotional tactics, it could raise ethical and legal issues. However, Drake’s claims that these actions devalued his brand as part of a scheme to secure a more favorable contract remain speculative. Labels often face competing interests when managing multiple high-profile artists, and prioritizing one project over another is not inherently improper.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future misconduct.[x]Compensatory damages would address alleged harm to Drake’s reputation and finances, while punitive damages aim to deter similar actions. However, without stronger evidence of wrongdoing, Drake’s legal arguments lack the foundation needed to prevail.
The implications of this case extend beyond Drake and UMG. It raises questions about how labels balance competing interests among their artists and the extent to which they should be held accountable for promotional decisions. If Drake were to succeed, it could set a precedent that challenges industry norms, potentially chilling creative expression and innovation. Diss tracks have long been a staple of hip-hop culture, and holding labels liable for promoting them risks stifling an integral part of the genre. Similarly, scrutinizing standard promotional strategies as unlawful could deter labels from investing in innovative marketing.
UMG’s defense will likely emphasize the speculative nature of Drake’s claims and the lack of evidence linking the label’s actions to concrete harm. The label can also point to its contractual obligations to Kendrick Lamar and the legitimate business interest in promoting his work. These arguments align with the broader reality that record labels operate within a competitive and profit-driven industry where prioritizing projects is a necessity.
As the litigation unfolds, it will likely reinforce the challenges artists face in holding labels accountable for perceived inequities while highlighting the limits of legal remedies in an industry driven by fierce competition and evolving practices. This case serves as a reminder of the practical and legal boundaries of artist-label relationships in an era defined by streaming and digital platforms.
[i] Compl. at 3, Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-003 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 15, 2025).
[ii] See id. at 46–47.
[iii] See id. at 51.
[iv] See id. at 78–80.
[v] See Jonathan Stempel, Drake Sues Longtime Label UMG for Defamation Over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us,’ Reuters (Jan. 15, 2025, 5:15 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/drake-sues-longtime-label-umg-defamation-over-kendrick-lamars-not-like-us-2025-01-15/.
Wednesday’s lawsuit followed a November petition in a New York state court in which Drake, through his company Frozen Moments, accused UMG and Spotify of using payola and streaming bots to promote “Not Like Us” at his music’s expense . . . . His related case against UMG and radio company iHeartMedia remains pending in a Texas state court.
Id.
[vi] See Id.
[vii] See Compl. at 21, Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-003 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 15, 2025).
[viii] See id. at 75.
[ix] See id. at 27–28.
[x] See id. at 80.
