Drake has initiated legal proceedings against Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify, accusing them of colluding to artificially elevate interest in Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us” while stifling his own musical endeavors. In a petition submitted to the New York Supreme Court, Drake’s legal team, representing his company Frozen Moments LLC, argues that UMG and the streaming giant orchestrated a manipulation campaign to saturate the airwaves with Lamar’s song.
According to the petition, the allegations suggest that UMG conspired with unnamed parties to engage ‘bots’ to exaggerate the popularity of “Not Like Us,” misleading fans into thinking it was more successful than it was. The document claims that UMG went as far as hiring influencers to push the track on social media and struck “pay-to-play” deals with radio stations to promote it.
A representative from UMG countered these allegations, calling them extremely offensive and untrue, asserting that the company adheres to the highest marketing standards. They emphasized that it is ultimately the fans who decide on the music they wish to enjoy. Meanwhile, Spotify has refrained from commenting on the matter.
This move marks a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between Drake and Lamar, sparked by their respective diss tracks aimed at one another. In this lyrical exchange, Lamar made various accusations towards Drake, while the latter responded with tracks that delved into Lamar’s personal life. Despite these claims, both artists have consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Drake’s petition, which does not constitute a full lawsuit yet, seeks to compel UMG and Spotify to safeguard all pertinent documents ahead of a potential lawsuit. Among the allegations, it is claimed that UMG reduced licensing fees for Spotify in return for promoting Lamar’s track, even directing users searching for Drake’s music to “Not Like Us.”
The petition emphasizes that UMG’s alleged tactics contributed to the track becoming the most-streamed diss track in Spotify history, racking up 900 million streams, including notable records for both single-day and weekly streams among hip-hop songs.
Drake’s legal team argues that the actions of UMG’s executives appear to be self-serving, intending to boost their financial outcomes, especially with the ensuing growth in streams of Lamar’s previous work. They claim that efforts to discuss these grievances were met with dismissal from UMG.
Moreover, they allege that UMG has attempted to conceal its activities by terminating employees associated with Drake, and they have cited violations of federal regulations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, among other charges.
This legal confrontation highlights the intense dynamics and rivalries present in the music industry, revealing deeper insights into how marketing strategies may unfold behind the scenes. As the situation progresses, it will be interesting to see how both artists navigate this complex landscape and what repercussions this will have on their careers.
In a hopeful light, this dispute emphasizes the determination of artists like Drake to stand up for their rights and creative integrity, fostering discussions about fairness and transparency within the music industry. As cases like this unfold, it can ultimately lead to better practices that benefit all artists involved.