Drake continues to be Big Mad about Kendrick Lamar’s chart-topping diss track, ‘Not Like Us,” and the Canadian singer/rapper filed a lawsuit against their joint record label, Universal Music Group, once again over the song.
At this point, the timeline of Drake’s legal battle over the tune is reaching complexity levels comparable to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but to briefly run it down: Back in November, Drake began filing lawsuits over the “Not Like Us,” partly claiming that UMG had inflated the song’s plays across radio and streaming.
Videos by VICE
Fast forward to January, he withdrew his lawsuit, seemingly having settled the matter privately. Now, NBC News reports, he has refiled against the record company, with his legal team arguing that the label used the resources at its disposal to “elevate a dangerous and inflammatory message that was designed to assassinate Drake’s character.”
“UMG’s campaign went well beyond the traditional music company playbook — indeed, UMG has unleashed every weapon in its arsenal, including, on information and belief, certain practices that are unlawful,” the suit goes on to state.
Drake’s lawsuit alleges much of the same from his previous filings: that UMG offered secret “financial incentives” to third parties to stream and promote “Not Like Us,” that UMG allowed content creators to play the song in their videos by removing copyright restrictions, and that UMG had the song played by “bots” to boost its popularity.
The suit also states that UMG’s promotion of “Not Like Us” was financially motivated, as the company’s executives would stand to make a lot of money off of it.
Additionally, the suit alleged that UMG was aware Drake’s contract was coming to an end and that it would have been very pricey to renew, so “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,” the suit states.
Drake lawsuit claims ‘Not Like Us’ Jeopardized His Safety
Fiscal circumstances aside, Drake says that “Not Like Us” has led him to fear for his safety and the safety of his family. He says he had to take his young son out of his elementary school due to safety concerns. The new suit says that the false allegations of Drake being a “certified pedophile” — featured in the song lyrics — led to “real world consequences” for Drake, which he holds UMG responsible for.
The suit alleged that, on May 7, a group of armed assailants drove to Drake’s home in Toronto and wounded one of his security guards when a gunman allegedly opened fire. This is in addition to at least two other alleged trespassing situations Drake’s security dealt with in the aftermath of the song.
“In the two decades leading up to May of 2024, although Drake was constantly in the public eye, nothing remotely like these events had ever happened to him or his family. But these events were not coincidental,” the suit says. “They immediately followed, and were proximately caused by, UMG’s actions leading up to and on May 4, 2024.”
Notably, Drake’s lawsuit does clarify that Kendrick Lamar is not a target, with the “God’s Plan” rapper’s attorneys at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP stating that the lawsuit is intended “to hold UMG accountable for knowingly promoting false and defamatory allegations against him.”
“Beginning on May 4, 2024, and every day since, UMG has used its massive resources as the world’s most powerful music company to elevate a dangerous and inflammatory message that was designed to assassinate Drake’s character, and led to actual violence at Drake’s doorstep,” Drake’s lawyers said in a statement.
“UMG wants the public to believe that this is a fight between artists, but this lawsuit is not brought against Kendrick Lamar,” the statement adds. “This lawsuit reveals the human and business consequences to UMG’s elevation of profits over the safety and well-being of its artists, and shines a light on the manipulation of artists and the public for corporate gain.”
Drake says he tried to privately resolve with UMG, according to the suit, but alleges that the record label “refused to do anything to help” and told him that he would “face humiliation” if he pursued a legal fight.
