After Dropping His Legal Petition, Drake Is Now Suing Universal Music Group for Defamation Over Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us"

The suit focuses on the label’s actions after Drake informed them of the “false and defamatory” nature of the track’s lyrics.

In a sudden turn of events, Drake has filed a full-fledged lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) for defamation over its promotion of “Not Like Us,” Kendrick Lamar‘s diss track accusing him of being a “Certified Lover Boy, certified pedophile.”

The suit was filed in Manhattan court shortly after The Boy withdrew his legal petition against the record label and Spotify. It alleges that UMG prioritized “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists” by allowing Dot to drop “Not Like Us” despite knowing that the “inflammatory and shocking allegations” included in the song were false. “UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the suit read. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”

Drake alleges that “Not Like Us” subjected him to real-world violence by inciting others to take physical action, with his lawyers comparing the situation to the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory that “centered on false allegations of pedophilia that later inspired a real-life shooting.” He went as far as to claim that the diss track led to a drive-by shooting at his Toronto home, as well as made him the target of online harassment. “UMG’s greed yielded real-world consequences. With the palpable physical threat to Drake’s safety and the bombardment of online harassment, Drake fears for the safety and security of himself, his family, and his friends,” his lawyers wrote.

The OVO head also used the lawsuit to claim that the label used the controversy to damage his reputation and gain leverage in future contract negotiations as his deal, which would be “costly” to extend, was close to fulfillment, “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.” Another new accusation included in this suit claims that UMG utilized its business relationships to secure Lamar’s headlining spot at the Super Bowl LIX Halftime Show.

Drake’s attorneys supposedly sent several legal letters in Summer and Fall 2024 in regards to the track’s “false and defamatory” nature, and the artist himself also “confronted” UMG about the risks the diss track’s release posed to his safety. However, they “refused to do anything to help” and only provided him with advice regarding his reputation. “After weeks of delay, UMG declined to do anything to assist Drake, including even going so far as refusing to agree to mediate with Drake,” the suit continued. “UMG instead insisted that it bore no responsibility for the harm Drake had suffered, and represented that if Drake sued UMG, UMG would respond by bringing claims against Kendrick Lamar, and intimated that Drake would face public ridicule for the perception that he had sued another rapper.”

He went on to double down on the previous accusations stated in his previous legal petition, which accused UMG and Spotify of conspiring to inflate the song’s popularity through bots, payola and reduced Spotify licensing rates. UMG also allegedly “whitelisted” the song on YouTube to bypass copyright filters, further amplifying its reach.

The lawsuit repeatedly clarified that Dot isn’t a defendant as “this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists” but rather about UMG’s actions after Drake informed them of the “false and defamatory” nature of the track’s lyrics. “This lawsuit involves no claims against Kendrick Lamar or any other artist,” his lawyers penned. “Instead, it is about UMG … and its malicious decision to publish and promote, through covert means, false allegations about Drake that UMG knew were false, explosive, inflammatory, and certain to result in both vitriol and substantial harm to Drake’s reputation.”

UMG called Drake’s claims “illogical” and explained that its made a substantial investment in him as one of its artists. “We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual. At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song,” the label responded.