Drake claims label should have refused to release ‘Not Like Us’ instead of letting Kendrick attack his ‘character’
The Canadian rapper is doubling down on his claims over the smash hit diss track calling him a pedophile
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Drake says his record company should have chosen to stop label mate and avowed rival Kendrick Lamar from releasing diss track “Not Like Us,” but instead turned it into a “viral mega-hit” to hurt the Canadian rapper’s career.
In a petition filed in a Texas court on Monday afternoon and made public Tuesday, the Toronto-born performer piled a raft of additional accusations against Universal Music Group (UMG), just hours after leveling the bombshell claim that the media giant artificially juiced streams of Lamar’s song — which dubs Drake a pedophile — while suppressing his own work.
“Earlier this year, [Lamar] presented UMG with a new song called ‘Not Like Us,’” the Texas filing states. “Before it approved the release of the song, UMG knew that the song itself, as well as its accompanying album art and music video, attacked the character of another one of UMG’s most prominent artists, Drake, by falsely accusing him of being a sex offender, engaging in pedophilic acts, harboring sex offenders, and committing other criminal sexual acts. Specifically, the song calls Drake a ‘certified pedophile,’ a ‘predator,’ and someone whose name should ‘be registered and placed on neighborhood watch.’”
However, the filing continues, UMG “has exclusive control over the licensing of ‘Not Like Us’ and could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed.”
“But UMG chose to do the opposite,” it contends. “UMG designed, financed, and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
Drake’s initial shot across UMG’s bow asked a judge to order the label to preserve all records of its communications with Spotify, alleging it bribed the streaming service to push “Not Like Us,” and used a network of bots to make the smash hit seem more popular than it actually was. The Texas filing says UMG used similar tactics with iHeartMedia, which is headquartered in San Antonio, and asks the court to order iHeart execs to sit for a deposition and reveal details of the alleged conspiracy.
The latest filing says Drake’s team has enough evidence against UMG to pursue a defamation claim, and that, depending on what comes out at the depositions, may also pursue claims of civil fraud and RICO violations.
“The record-shattering spread of ‘Not Like Us’ on streaming, sales, and radio play was deliberate, and appears to have relied upon irregular and inappropriate business practices,” the filing states.
It says that Drake has “learned of at least one UMG employee” paying off an independent radio promoter who got “Not Like Us” played on the air “without [the stations] disclosing to their listeners that they had been paid by UMG to do so.” Drake has “been unable to confirm whether any iHeartRadio stations were among the stations paid as part of UMG’s pay-to-play scheme or whether there were any direct payments from UMG to iHeartRadio to promote “Not Like Us,” according to the filing.
But, it continues, “Given iHeartMedia’s status as the ‘number one audio company’ in the country, Petitioner believes that UMG engaged in similar tactics to drive radio play of ‘Not Like Us’ on iHeartMedia stations.”
A UMG source called the overall claims nonsense, saying the label has poured millions of dollars into Drake’s career, and pushed back firmly on the notion it would intentionally try to harm one of its most popular artists.
A UMG spokesman later responded with an official statement, saying, “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue. 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.”
On Tuesday, a source from Drake’s camp told The Independent, “This action is targeted at UMG, not iHeart. We know UMG engaged in this manipulative campaign. We don’t know who else joined in, so the point of this filing is to find out.”
In an email, iHeartMedia spokeswoman Wendy Goldberg declined to comment, as the company is not accused of any alleged wrondoing.
Drake and Lamar have been beefing for the better part of a decade, with Lamar, for the most part, coming out on top.
Following Monday’s filing, some hip-hop fans lambasted Drake for the move.
“Drake is the first rapper to ever run to court after losing a rap battle,” one user posted on X.
“Drake taking it to court after losing a rap battle is not hip-hop,” another wrote. “At all.”