Drake sues Universal Music for defamation related to Kendrick Lamar diss track 'Not Like Us'

After dropping a legal petition made against his own label, Universal Music Group (UMG), and Spotify over Kendrick Lamar’s record-smashing diss track ‘Not Like Us’, Drake has cranked it up a notch by officially suing UMG for defamation over the song. 

Indeed, just when the voluntarily withdrawl of the pre-action filing against UMG and Spotify seemed to effectively end the case, Drake has doubled down and is already facing ridicule online. 

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York City, alleges UMG — which is also the parent record label for Lamar — published and promoted 'Not Like Us’ even though it included paedophilia allegations against Drake.  

The result, the suit says, was intruders shooting a security guard and two attempted break-ins at Drake’s Toronto home, online hate and harassment, a hit to his reputation and a decrease in his brand's value before his contract renegotiation with UMG this year. Without taking into consideration the self-inflicted hits to his own reputation, having effectively lost the rap battle against Kendrick Lamar.  

Lamar is not named in the suit. 

“The lawsuit is not about the artist who created ‘Not Like Us,’" the lawsuit says. “It is, instead, entirely about UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false, but dangerous.”

The suit later alleges that UMG “did so because it understood that the Recording's inflammatory and shocking allegations were a gold mine” and that the music company has made large investments and used its connections to arrange for ‘Not Like Us’ to be performed at next month's Super Bowl, where Lamar will be the halftime entertainment.

The lawsuit, which is seeking a trial and an undisclosed amount of money for damages, also repeated allegations in other legal filings that UMG falsely pumped up the popularity of ‘Not Like Us’ on streaming services.

UMG previously said in a statement that the "suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue”, adding: “We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”

The track is nominated for five Grammys, including record of the year and song of the year.

UMG has responded to the lawsuit’s allegations in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

“Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist — let alone Drake — is illogical," the company said. “We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”

The company added: “Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists. He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music."

Well put. And you don’t see Kendrick Lamar suing because Drake insinuated that he was a wife beater or was molested as a child in the Canadian artist's diss tracks. Instead, Lamar responded by dropping songs and maintaining his credibility. As one does in a rap beef.  

Additional sources • AP, Rolling Stone