On January 15th 2025, Drake filed a lawsuit against UMG Recordings, Inc., accusing the label of deliberately promoting false and harmful narratives for profit. The complaint alleges a targeted campaign of defamation that not only jeopardized his career but also his safety. This is on the back of withdrawing a petition against UMG and Kendrick Lamar he filed earlier last year in 2024.
His new case has some pretty heavy ramifications not only for the music industry but the First Amendment, since freedom of speech is usually implicated when it comes to defamation cases.
The Allegations: A Calculated Attack
The lawsuit is about the notorious and popular hit Not Like Us, by Kendrick Lamar and released by UMG in May 2024. According to the complaint, the song falsely accuses Drake of pedophilia with inflammatory lyrics like, “Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young,” and “Certified Lover Boy? Certified Pedophile.” The song also references violent consequences, with allusions to an “Oakland show” being Drake’s “last stop.”
The complaint describes a campaign that extended beyond the lyrics. UMG is accused of distributing promotional imagery that included aerial shots of Drake’s Toronto home, marked with icons typically associated with sex offender registries. A subsequent music video escalated the attack, showing Lamar smashing an owl piñata, a direct reference to Drake’s OVO brand. These visual elements, according to the lawsuit, were designed to reinforce the defamatory narrative and amplify its reach.
The Fallout: Defamation in the Digital Age
The lawsuit alleges that the consequences of the song’s release were immediate and severe. On May 7, 2024, just days after the track was made public, Drake’s Toronto home came under attack. Armed assailants fired shots at the property, injuring a security guard. In the days that followed, trespassers breached his property multiple times, with one individual shouting racial slurs and threats before being apprehended.
Online, the harassment was relentless. Social media platforms were flooded with accusations echoing the song’s “defamatory claims”. Flyers appeared throughout Toronto, publicly linking Drake to convicted sex offenders. The intensifying scrutiny and threats forced Drake to remove his son from school and invest heavily in additional security measures for his home and public appearances.
According to the complaint, these events were not unforeseeable but a direct consequence of UMG’s promotional efforts, which prioritized profit over the safety of its artist.
Payola and Industry Ethics
A central element of the lawsuit is the accusation that UMG engaged in payola to inflate the song’s popularity. The practice of paying for airtime and streams, while illegal under the Communications Act of 1934, continues to surface in various forms within the music industry. Drake alleges that UMG knew these claims were false but promoted the track aggressively to capitalize on its sensationalism. The label reportedly removed copyright restrictions, encouraging widespread use of the song on platforms like TikTok and YouTube. Furthermore, the complaint accuses UMG of engaging in payola, a practice of paying for artificial streams and airtime, ensuring the track gained maximum exposure.
Drake alleges that UMG used tactics such as “whitelisting” the track. Whitelisting is basically removing copyright restrictions to allow unrestricted use by influencers and content creators. Commonly uploading copyrighted material results in removal of that material, but Drake argues UMG whitelisted Not Like Us, fueling virality. The complaint also describes undisclosed financial incentives to third parties, further boosting the song’s reach. These actions, if proven, would represent a deliberate manipulation of public perception and raise significant ethical concerns about how the industry operates.
These allegation aren’t unwarranted and are probably one of the more serious allegations. In 2006, UMG Recordings, alongside other major record labels, faced significant scrutiny for its involvement in payola practices, ultimately resulting in a multi-million-dollar settlement.
The New York State Attorney General’s investigation in ’06 revealed that UMG and other labels engaged in illegal schemes to influence radio playlists, paying radio stations and DJs under the table to secure airtime for specific artists. The practices ranged from direct payments to providing lavish gifts and extravagant trips, all aimed at boosting the visibility of their songs on major radio networks. UMG agreed to a $12 million settlement without admitting wrongdoing, but the case highlighted a systemic issue within the music industry. Despite the settlement and increased regulatory oversight, allegations of similar practices have persisted.
Modern payola practices in the music industry remain pervasive, with companies like UMG adapting their methods for a digital age. The complaint expressly states, “it remains an open secret within the music industry that power players, like UMG, are continuing to engage in payola.” In November 2024, prominent DJ Funkmaster Flex publicly shared an alleged payola price list for radio airplay, revealing rates such as $350,000 for pop radio, $250,000 for urban radio, and $3,000–$5,000 for local DJs.
UMG’s payola strategies extend beyond traditional radio, leveraging modern platforms like streaming services. Allegations include offering financial incentives to streaming platforms such as Spotify by charging lower-than-usual licensing rates in exchange for boosting tracks like Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” in user recommendations. Users reported strange anomalies, such as typing unrelated searches like “Eminem” into Spotify and being prompted to stream the Recording instead. These tactics mislead users into consuming content falsely presented as organic or aligned with their tastes.
Further, UMG reportedly employed bots to inflate streaming numbers artificially, paid influencers and podcasts to promote tracks without disclosure, and even manipulated digital assistants like Apple’s Siri to misdirect users requesting unrelated songs to instead stream UMG content. Such practices mirror the old payola scandals but now operate in the shadow of technology, making them harder to detect and regulate.
Payola, while often hidden behind opaque agreements, undermines the integrity of music metrics and distorts the success of artists and songs. In this case, the alleged use of these tactics not only damaged Drake’s reputation but also placed his safety at risk.
Why File in NYC?
If UMG gets hit with a defamation case over promoting “Not Like Us,” choosing New York as the venue makes a lot of sense. The state’s federal courts are known for dealing with defamation and free speech issues, especially when it comes to public figures like Drake. New York federal court would utilize the precedent set in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , where public figures have to prove “actual malice” – basically showing that UMG either knew the track’s claims were false or didn’t care about checking them. On top of that, the case gets messier with UMG allegedly using bots or manipulating streaming platforms to boost numbers. These tactics raise questions not only about defamation but also about unfair business practices. The court would have to dig into whether UMG acted with malice, and that discovery process is key in figuring out if they crossed the line. New York courts are pretty comfortable with balancing First Amendment rights and defamation claims, which makes them the right place for this kind of case. Ultimately, the outcome could set important rules for how entertainment companies are held accountable for both defamatory content and shady digital tricks.
If Drake filed in California, I highly doubt a judge or a jury would side with him. The people love Kendrick that much, some have joked that a motion to declare “They Not Like Us” would likely pass legal muster in that jurisdiction- joking but there’s some truth to that, I can guarantee Drake’s lawyers thought about it.
The Implications for the Music Industry
Drake’s case challenges the music industry to consider the consequences of its actions, particularly when sensationalism take precedence over truth.
It also highlights the challenges of navigating defamation law in an era where virality can spread false narratives with unprecedented speed. Artistic expression is a fundamental right, this case underscores the potential for harm when that expression crosses into the realm of false accusations and incitement.
These allegations of payola and promotional manipulation bring renewed attention to long-standing issues of transparency and fairness in the music industry. The practices described in the complaint, if substantiated, could ensure the accountability of labels in the digital age and their obligations to both their artists and the public are in question in this case.
Implications on The First Amendment
The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is a cornerstone of our Constitution, safeguarding the exchange of ideas and artistic expression. In the context of UMG’s dissemination of the track “Not Like Us,” which allegedly contains defamatory content targeting Drake, this constitutional protection encounters some limitations, for example speech that incites imminent violence, obscenity, or false advertising.
The First Amendment robustly defends freedom of expression, it even extends to speech that is false and defamatory (satire, jokes, paintings etc.). But private people can hold you liable for your speech if it materially causes them harm, and you acted knowingly or negligently. In this scenario, UMG’s actions like promoting a track with alleged defamatory statements- are viable claims exposing the company to potential legal liability.
Speech and accountability under the First Amendment warrants careful scrutiny. Businesses like UMG possess the right to disseminate and promote artistic works; however, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of individuals to protect their reputations from malicious falsehoods. The Supreme Court’s precedent in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan establishes that public figures, such as Drake, must demonstrate that defamatory statements were made with ‘actual malice’- that is, with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. If it is established that UMG acted with such malice in promoting “Not Like Us,” the First Amendment would not shield the company from defamation claims.
UMG’s alleged use of deceptive promotional tactics- such as financially incentivizing streaming platforms to manipulate search algorithms and employing bots to inflate streaming numbers raises concerns about the ethical boundaries of free speech in the digital age. These actions, which may mislead consumers and distort public discourse, challenge the principles of transparency and truthfulness that underpin First Amendment protections. The deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information, particularly when driven by commercial interests, underscores the necessity of delineating the limits of free speech to prevent the erosion of public trust and the unjust harm to individuals’ reputations.
A Turning Point for the Industry
This case is more than a dispute between an artist and a record label. It’s a monumental moment in the music industry, challenging its practices and ethical boundaries. Drake’s allegations compel a deeper look at how entities like UMG influence public perception and the potential consequences of prioritizing profits over accountability. Its broader impact may reshape how record labels handle controversial content and their relationships with artists. It raises the stakes for an industry that must decide whether it values integrity or is willing to sacrifice it for the sake of sensationalism and a few extra dollars.
The outcome of this case will likely reverberate far beyond Drake’s career, setting a precedent for how defamation and corporate responsibility are addressed in the music industry.
His reputation in Hip Hop will be significantly altered after filing this lawsuit. For better or for worse.
Sources:
Drake V. UMG
Sermo Civilis 