Drake took his legal action against UMG to the next level when he sued the music giant for defamation and harassment over Kendrick Lamar‘s “Not LIke Us” in Federal court on Wednesday (Jan. 15). The lawsuit makes several scandalous accusations against UMG, Drake and Kendrick’s parent record company, claiming they intentionally and illegally propped up K-Dot to Aubrey’s detriment.

Here’s a breakdown of Drake’s claims and the allegations against UMG.

The Allegations:

• Drake’s lawsuit claims “Not Like Us” was released “to convey the specific, unmistakable, and false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal
  pedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response.”
• The shooting that took place outside his home on May 7, 2024, three days after the release of “Not Like Us,” was a direct reaction to the song.
• UMG propped up “Not Like Us” for financial gain for its executives. The move was also done to maximize Kendrick Lamar’s sales and devalue Drake in order to “gain leverage to force Drake to sign a new deal on terrms more favorable
  to UMG.”
• UMG removed copyright restrictions for “Not Like Us” on YouTube and Twitch, allowing third parties to spread the song to large audiences. Kai Cenat, NoLifeShaq, RDC Gaming, Zias and CartierFamily are named in the suit as streamers who took full advantage of the lifted restrictions.

• Drake confronted UMG about its role in promoting false pedophile accusations—”which resulted in violent threats, reputational, financial damage and more”— but they continued to republish and promote the song, despite knowing the allegations. were baseless.
• UMG CEO Lucian Grainge played a key role in the initial publication of the “Not Like Us” video either in directing or approving the publication and/or failing to prevent its publication.
• UMG used its ownership interest in VEVO to disproportionately boost the visibility of the “Not Like Us” video.

• UMG also granted licenses for the “Not Like Us” to be played at sporting events, award shows and political rallies.
• UMG used third parties and bots to artificially inflate “Not Like Us.”
• UMG offered undisclosed financial incentives to promote “Not Like Us.”
• These deceptions ultimately did harm to Drake’s reputation and financial status.

UMG Responds to Drake’s Allegations

A spokesperson for UMG has released the following statement to XXL in response to Drake’s new lawsuit:

“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. 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.

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.

We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual. At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more that write a song.”

Read More: Is Drake Trying to Prevent Kendrick Lamar From Performing “Not Like Us” at the Super Bowl?

See All the Numbers Calculated for Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s Diss Tracks