Drake’s fellow rappers are calling his credibility into question after the Canadian artist sensationally filed two legal actions against record label Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s “not Like Us”.
The “One Dance” star, 38, alleges that UMG conspired to inflate the popularity of Lamar’s 2024 track, widely believed to be the final smack-down in his feud with Drake, amid their ongoing rivalry.
In allegations that UMG branded “offensive and untrue”, the filing said that UMG “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves with a song, ‘Not Like Us’, in order to make that song go viral, including by using ‘bots’ and pay-to-play agreements.”
It said the company and streaming giant Spotify “have a long-standing, symbiotic business relationship” and alleges that UMG offered special licensing rates to Spotify for the song.
The petition also accused UMG of firing employees seen as loyal to Drake “in an apparent effort to conceal its schemes”.
While Drake’s grievance is seemingly with UMG, which owns the subsidiary Republic Records to which he is signed, the legal action is raising eyebrows on the hip-hop scene.
[Lamar][ said squabble up, not lawyer up,” Charlamagne Tha God joked on social media.
Billboard reports that Grammy-nominated artist Rapsody, who featured on Lamar’s critically adored 2015 album To Pimp a Butterfly, tweeted: “Legal action over losing a rap beef. My my my. Not like us at all. #Cultureovereverything.”
On his podcast, rapper Joe Budden didn’t hold back, calling Drake “selfish and manipulative” in an expletive-laden rant.
Elsewhere on social media, hip-hop fans are also laying into Drake for his decision.
“Suing your opponent in a RAP beef??? Girl…” one music fan wrote.
“You can’t even defend Drake at this point… he really filed a lawsuit over a rap beef that he started,” another fan said.
One person wrote: “I think this lawsuit is the single most embarrassing thing Drake could’ve done.”
The Independent has contacted Drake’s representatives for comment.
Lamar and Drake were once on relatively friendly terms, with the Canadian artist inviting Lamar out on his Club Paradise headline tour.
Lamar said in an early career interview that he and Drake “clicked immediately”, describing the fellow rapper as a “genuine soul” and revealing that Drake was the first person outside of his immediate team to hear his debut album Section 80.
However, around the release of Lamar’s critically acclaimed second album, Good Kid, MAAD City, on which Drake featured, tension appeared to begin brewing between the pair, seemingly in part due to their differing attitudes towards wealth and fame.
Drake has said that UMG should have refused to let Lamar release “Not Like Us”, which he said attacked his character.
“Earlier this year, [Lamar] presented UMG with a new song called ‘Not Like Us,’” the Texas filing stated. “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 paedophilic 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 contended. “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.”
Universal Music Group said in a statement in response to Drake’s legal filings that the “suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue”.
It continued: “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.”
