In a dramatic escalation of the simmering rivalry between two of music’s titans, Aubrey “Drake” Graham has launched a multi-pronged legal assault against Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify, alleging a brazen conspiracy to artificially inflate the streaming numbers of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, “Not Like Us.”
The filings, submitted to the New York Supreme Court on Monday and a separate action in Texas, paint a picture of corporate collusion, alleged payola, and a blatant disregard for fair competition, leaving shockwaves through the already turbulent landscape of the music industry.
The crux of the New York lawsuit, filed on behalf of Drake’s company, Frozen Moments LLC, centres on the explosive success of “Not Like Us,” which reportedly amassed a staggering 96 million streams within its first seven days of release, catapulting it to the top of the US charts and securing a coveted position in the top 10 radio hits.
Drake’s legal team argues that this meteoric rise wasn’t organic; instead, they contend that UMG and Spotify engaged in a meticulously orchestrated campaign employing a range of illicit tactics, including the deployment of bots, undisclosed payments (payola), and strategic manipulation of user recommendations and playlists to artificially inflate streams.
The petition alleges that UMG, far from relying on the unpredictable forces of market demand and standard promotional practices, orchestrated a calculated and aggressive scheme to saturate streaming platforms and airwaves with “Not Like Us.”
Crucially, the filing claims that Spotify received “Not Like Us” at a significant discount a reported 30% reduction in licensing fees in exchange for preferential treatment, effectively acting as an under-the-table incentive for the platform to prioritize the song’s visibility and accessibility to users.
This alleged quid pro quo, according to Drake’s lawyers, directly undermined the fair competition that should underpin the music industry and constitutes a violation of antitrust laws.
The lawyers contend that this preferential treatment actively stifled the organic growth and potential of Drake’s music, creating an uneven playing field that directly harmed his commercial interests.
The sheer scale of the alleged manipulation, they argue, underscores the calculated and systematic nature of the conspiracy.
Adding another layer of complexity to the already explosive legal battle, Drake has concurrently filed a defamation lawsuit against UMG in Texas.
This separate action alleges that UMG was aware of the allegedly defamatory nature of “Not Like Us,” which reportedly contains accusations of paedophilia levelled against Drake, yet proceeded with its distribution regardless.
This, Drake’s lawyers argue, demonstrates a conscious disregard for his reputation and constitutes a breach of the implied duty of care inherent in their artist-label relationship.
UMG, in a statement released in response to the allegations, vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
A spokesperson dismissed the claims as “offensive and untrue,” emphasizing the company’s commitment to ethical practices in its marketing and promotional campaigns.
They stressed that the success of “Not Like Us” was driven by genuine fan demand and that any suggestion of UMG undermining its artists is fundamentally absurd.
The spokesperson forcefully countered that no amount of legal manoeuvring could mask the undeniable reality that consumer preference drives the music industry, and “Not Like Us’s” success speaks volumes about its appeal to the listening public.
The irony of this situation is palpable. Both Drake and Lamar share a long and established history with UMG, with Drake affiliated with Republic Records and Lamar with Interscope Records, both subsidiaries of the powerful conglomerate.
This internal conflict, a battle between two of UMG’s biggest stars, has the potential to reshape the dynamics of the music industry.
The outcome of these lawsuits could set a significant precedent, potentially impacting how streaming services interact with labels and artists, and fundamentally altering the understanding of fair competition in the digital age.
The coming months will undoubtedly witness a fierce legal battle, with the full extent of the alleged conspiracy and its consequences yet to be revealed.
