In a surprising turn of events, global music star Drake has withdrawn his legal claim accusing Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify of illegally boosting the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.”
The petition, which was filed in November 2024, alleged that UMG and Spotify used artificial methods, including the use of bots and pay-to-play schemes, to manipulate the streaming numbers of Lamar’s song. The track, which was released as part of an ongoing feud between the two artists, became a viral sensation due to its bold lyrics and controversial content aimed at Drake.
Despite the dramatic nature of the accusations, which garnered significant media attention, the petition has been discontinued without any financial penalties imposed on the parties involved. This legal move has raised questions about the nature of the dispute, the potential for future legal action, and the broader implications for the music industry’s complex relationships with streaming platforms and record labels.
Table of Contents
A Clash Between Two Titans
The feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar is no stranger to the public eye. Both artists have been at the top of the hip-hop world for over a decade, often finding themselves in competition for chart-topping success, critical acclaim, and cultural influence. Their rivalry has seen its fair share of indirect shots through social media, interviews, and, most notably, diss tracks. However, “Not Like Us,” a track from Lamar’s latest album, marked a particularly sharp escalation in their ongoing beef.
In the song, Lamar does not hold back in criticizing Drake, going as far as to describe him with harsh and inflammatory terms. The song includes explicit references to Drake as a “certified pedophile,” “predator,” and suggests that he should be placed on a “neighborhood watch” list. These statements struck a nerve with Drake, who quickly took legal action, claiming that the track was defamatory and that its release was damaging to his public image.
In his November petition, Drake (whose real name is Aubrey Graham) accused UMG, the record label that represents both him and Kendrick Lamar, as well as Spotify, the leading music streaming platform, of using illegal tactics to boost the visibility and streaming numbers of Lamar’s diss track. According to Drake’s legal team, these alleged actions were part of a broader strategy to capitalize on the heightened attention surrounding the ongoing dispute, which had already drawn significant media and public interest.
The specifics of Drake’s claim centered around three main allegations: the use of bots, discounted licensing rates, and pay-to-play agreements. Bots, automated programs that mimic human behavior, are often used to artificially inflate streaming numbers on platforms like Spotify. While bots have long been a subject of controversy in the music industry, their use for inflating song popularity is considered a violation of Spotify’s terms of service.
Additionally, Drake’s legal team suggested that UMG used discounted licensing rates and potentially illegal pay-to-play agreements to ensure Lamar’s track would be prominently featured on playlists and other high-visibility areas on streaming platforms. These practices are often viewed as detrimental to artists who do not have the same promotional backing, as they create an uneven playing field within the competitive landscape of the music industry.
Check also: Drake vs. Universal: The Explosive Allegations Behind Kendrick Lamar’s Viral Success
The Discontinuation of the Pre-Action Case
Despite the seriousness of these allegations, Drake’s legal petition was officially withdrawn on January 9, 2025, with no financial penalties imposed on either UMG or Spotify. A “pre-action case” is a legal term that refers to a stage of litigation before an official lawsuit is filed. It is a way for a party to seek information and clarification from the defendant(s) before escalating the dispute into a full-blown court case. This stage allows time for the parties involved to resolve the issue informally, often avoiding a lengthy and costly trial.
In the case of Drake’s petition against UMG and Spotify, it appears that the matter was resolved without the need for further legal action. Although there are no concrete details regarding the settlement, neither UMG nor Spotify objected to the withdrawal of the petition. Spotify had previously filed a formal opposition against the initial claim, but did not challenge Drake’s decision to discontinue the case. UMG, for its part, had refrained from filing an opposition, instead choosing to “reserve its position” on the matter. This suggests that UMG may have been more open to resolving the issue without engaging in an extended legal battle.
The Defamation Case: A Separate Legal Battle
While the first legal petition regarding the alleged manipulation of streaming numbers has been resolved, Drake’s second legal action is still ongoing. This case, which focuses on defamation, accuses UMG of funneling payments to iHeartRadio to promote Lamar’s diss track, despite the damaging content directed at Drake. According to Drake’s legal team, the lyrics in “Not Like Us” are not only false but also highly defamatory, painting Drake in an extremely negative light. These allegations, if proven to be true, could result in significant legal consequences for UMG and iHeartRadio.
Drake’s lawyers argue that the release of the track was particularly harmful to their client’s reputation due to the highly offensive language used in the song. The song’s explicit reference to Drake as a “certified pedophile” has raised concerns about its potential impact on his personal and professional life, given the serious nature of such accusations. The lawsuit claims that UMG, as the parent label, should have taken action to prevent the song’s release, especially given the inflammatory nature of its lyrics.
This second legal case involves both UMG and iHeartRadio, a major player in the radio industry, which has long had a symbiotic relationship with record labels for promotional purposes. It is alleged that UMG paid iHeartRadio to help promote the track, ensuring its broad reach despite the controversial nature of its content.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the music industry, particularly in terms of how record labels and media companies handle potentially defamatory material within their promotional efforts.
