Drake Sues Global Music Group Over Alleged Defamation in Kendrick Lamar Diss Track
In a dramatic turn of events, global rap superstar Drake has taken legal action against Universal Music Group (UMG), accusing the label of defamation and endangering his life by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s controversial diss track, “Not Like Us.” The lawsuit, filed on January 15, 2025, alleges that UMG knowingly amplified false and damaging claims about Drake, including accusations of pedophilia, to boost profits at the expense of his reputation and safety.
Drake’s legal team claims that UMG prioritized “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of it’s artists” by pushing Lamar’s track, which they describe as containing “inflammatory and shocking allegations.” The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, asserts that the label intentionally sought to turn Drake into a “pariah” and a “target for harassment, or worse.”
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the complaint states.“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.”
The legal filing also highlights the real-world consequences of the track’s release. Drake’s attorneys claim that the song’s promotion led to a drive-by shooting at his toronto home just days after its release. They drew parallels to the infamous “Pizzagate” conspiracy, which similarly involved baseless allegations of pedophilia and resulted in real-life violence.
“UMG’s greed yielded real-world consequences,” the lawsuit reads. “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.”
Interestingly, the lawsuit does not target Kendrick Lamar directly. Drake’s attorneys emphasize that the case is not about a “rap beef gone legal” but rather about UMG’s alleged misconduct. “UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal, but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists,” the filing clarifies.
The legal battle marks the latest chapter in a high-profile feud between Drake and Lamar, which escalated last year with a series of scathing diss tracks. Lamar’s “Not like Us” became a chart-topping hit, but its success has now become the center of a legal storm. Drake’s team argues that UMG’s promotion of the track crossed ethical and legal boundaries, putting the artist’s life at risk.
As of now, UMG has not publicly responded to the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the label did not promptly return requests for comment.
This case raises critical questions about the responsibilities of record labels in managing artist disputes and the potential consequences of prioritizing profits over artist welfare. For drake, the lawsuit represents a fight not just for his reputation but for his safety and the well-being of those close to him.
Drake Sues UMG Over Alleged defamation in Kendrick Lamar Feud
Drake has taken legal action against Universal Music Group (UMG), accusing the label of promoting Kendrick Lamar’s track “Not Like Us” despite its allegedly defamatory lyrics.The lawsuit,filed on Wednesday,claims UMG exploited the song to damage Drake’s reputation and gain leverage in future contract negotiations.
According to the complaint, UMG saw Lamar’s track as a “gold mine” due to its ownership of Lamar’s master recordings. The label allegedly used the song to devalue Drake’s music and brand, aiming to pressure him into signing a new contract on terms more favorable to UMG. “UMG’s contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment … UMG anticipated that extending Drake’s contract would be costly,” the lawsuit states. “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.”
Drake’s legal team revealed that the rapper had privately confronted UMG about its role in promoting Lamar’s lyrics, warning of potential risks to his safety. Despite these concerns,the label reportedly refused to intervene. “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 complaint reads. “UMG rather insisted that it bore no duty for the harm Drake faced.”
The lawsuit also highlights that UMG advised Drake about the reputational risks of pursuing legal action during a high-profile rap feud. However, Drake’s attorneys argue that the label’s inaction left him with no choice but to seek legal redress. “With his own record label having waged a campaign against him,and refusing to address this as a business matter,Drake has been left with no choice but to seek legal redress against UMG,” they wrote.
This legal battle marks a significant escalation in Drake’s ongoing rift with UMG, were he has spent his entire career. Starting with a deal under Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, distributed by Republic Records, Drake later signed directly with Republic. The lawsuit underscores the strained relationship between the artist and his label, with Drake accusing UMG of prioritizing profits over his well-being.
Drake’s decision to sue has drawn mixed reactions within the hip-hop community, with some criticizing him for taking legal action over a rap beef. However, his legal team maintains that the case is about protecting his reputation and addressing the alleged harm caused by UMG’s actions. as the lawsuit unfolds, it remains to be seen how this high-stakes legal battle will impact Drake’s career and his relationship with UMG.
In a recent legal battle that has sent shockwaves through the music industry, Drake has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging defamation and corporate misconduct.The case, which has sparked widespread debate, centers on claims that UMG knowingly promoted false and damaging allegations against the artist, leading to significant harm to his reputation and personal safety.
Drake’s legal team has been speedy to clarify that the lawsuit is not directed at fellow rapper Kendrick Lamar, despite the public perception of a feud between the two artists. Rather, the complaint focuses on UMG’s actions following Drake’s notification that Lamar’s lyrics and music video contained defamatory content. “This lawsuit involves no claims against Kendrick Lamar or any other artist,” the filing states.“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.”
The lawsuit also accuses UMG of favoring Lamar in its business dealings, including securing him a coveted spot as the headliner for the Super Bowl LIX Halftime Show in February. according to Drake’s attorneys, UMG “conferred financial benefits and leveraged existing business relationships” to ensure Lamar’s prominence, further tilting the scales in his favor.
These actions, the complaint argues, have had a profound impact. Lamar’s track “Not Like Us” soared to the top of the Billboard Hot 100 for two consecutive weeks in May and remains a chart-topper, amassing “billions of plays” and achieving “ubiquitous” popularity. However,this success has come at a cost for Drake,who claims to have endured relentless public backlash and even threats of violence as a result of the controversy.
Drake’s legal team has painted a stark picture of UMG’s priorities, accusing the label of prioritizing profit over the well-being of its artists.“Even though UMG enriched itself and its shareholders by exploiting Drake’s music for years, and knew that the salacious allegations against Drake were false, UMG chose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists,” the filing asserts.
As the case unfolds, it raises critical questions about the responsibilities of record labels to their artists and the ethical boundaries of corporate decision-making in the entertainment industry. With both legal and reputational stakes at play, the outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future.
This is a developing story,and updates will be provided as new facts emerges.
What are the potential outcomes of this case?
Interview with Legal Expert and Entertainment Attorney, Sarah Mitchell, on Drake’s Lawsuit Against Universal Music Group
By Archyde News
Archyde: Thank you for joining us today, Sarah. As an entertainment attorney with over 15 years of experience, you’ve seen your fair share of high-profile legal battles in the music industry. Drake’s lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) has sparked widespread debate. Can you break down the key legal arguments in this case?
Sarah Mitchell: absolutely. At its core, this lawsuit revolves around two main claims: defamation and negligence. Drake’s legal team is arguing that UMG knowingly promoted Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, “Not Like Us,” which contained what they allege are false and damaging accusations, including claims of pedophilia. They’re asserting that UMG prioritized profits over Drake’s safety and reputation, which they claim led to real-world consequences, such as the drive-by shooting at his home.
Archyde: The lawsuit doesn’t target Kendrick Lamar directly. Why do you think Drake’s legal team chose to focus solely on UMG?
Sarah Mitchell: That’s a strategic move. By targeting UMG, Drake’s team is framing this as a case about corporate misconduct rather than a personal feud between artists. They’re arguing that UMG, as the label responsible for promoting the track, had a duty to consider the potential harm it could cause. This approach allows Drake to avoid the optics of suing another artist, which could be seen as escalating a rap beef into a legal battle—something that might not sit well with fans or the hip-hop community.
Archyde: UMG has yet to respond publicly. What do you think their defense might look like?
Sarah Mitchell: UMG will likely argue that they where simply promoting a song by one of their artists, Kendrick Lamar, and that they had no control over the content of the lyrics. They might also claim that diss tracks are a common part of hip-hop culture and that Drake, as a seasoned artist, should have anticipated the risks of engaging in such a feud. Additionally, they could argue that the allegations in the song are protected under free speech, especially if they’re presented as artistic expression rather than factual claims.
Archyde: The lawsuit mentions the drive-by shooting at Drake’s home and draws parallels to the “Pizzagate” conspiracy. How notable are these real-world consequences in a defamation case?
Sarah Mitchell: Real-world consequences can significantly strengthen a defamation claim. If Drake’s team can prove that UMG’s promotion of the track directly led to the shooting or other threats, it could demonstrate that the label’s actions were not just harmful but reckless. However, establishing that direct causation will be challenging. UMG’s lawyers will likely argue that the shooting was an independent act and not directly tied to the song’s release.
Archyde: Drake’s legal team also claims that UMG used the track to devalue his brand and gain leverage in contract negotiations. how common is this kind of corporate maneuvering in the music industry?
Sarah Mitchell: Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon. Record labels are businesses, and their primary goal is to maximize profits. In this case, Drake’s team is alleging that UMG saw an opportunity to pressure him into signing a new contract on more favorable terms by damaging his reputation.While this might sound Machiavellian, it’s not unheard of for labels to use leverage in negotiations, especially with high-profile artists like drake.
Archyde: some critics argue that Drake is taking a rap beef too far by suing his label. How do you respond to that?
Sarah Mitchell: I understand that outlook, but this case isn’t just about a rap beef. It’s about the responsibilities of a record label to its artists. If UMG knowingly promoted a track that put Drake’s safety at risk, that’s a serious issue. Drake’s legal team is framing this as a matter of corporate accountability, not just a personal feud. That said, the optics of suing your own label are complicated, and it could have long-term implications for Drake’s relationship with UMG and the industry as a whole.
Archyde: What do you think the potential outcomes of this case could be?
Sarah Mitchell: There are a few possibilities. If Drake’s team can prove defamation and negligence,UMG could face significant financial penalties and be forced to issue a public apology. Alternatively, the case could be settled out of court, which is common in high-profile lawsuits like this. A settlement might involve UMG agreeing to certain terms, such as revising their policies on promoting controversial content or compensating Drake for damages. If the case goes to trial, it could set a precedent for how record labels handle artist disputes in the future.
Archyde: what broader implications could this case have for the music industry?
sarah Mitchell: This case could have far-reaching implications. It raises crucial questions about the ethical responsibilities of record labels and the potential consequences of prioritizing profits over artist welfare. If Drake wins, it could lead to stricter regulations on how labels promote controversial content and how they handle disputes between artists. Conversely, if UMG prevails, it might embolden labels to take a more hands-off approach, arguing that they’re not responsible for the fallout from artistic expression. Either way, this case is a landmark moment for the industry.
Archyde: Thank you, Sarah, for your insights. This is undoubtedly a complex and high-stakes legal battle, and we’ll be following it closely.
Sarah Mitchell: Thank you for having me. It’s a interesting case, and I’m curious to see how it unfolds.
