The Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) court battle has reached a dramatic stage, with the music giant trying to stop the discovery process in Drake’s suit. The case began with Kendrick Lamar’s vicious diss track Not Like Us, which Drake claims contains defamatory allegations that had actual effects.
While both parties prepare for critical court hearings, UMG attempts to prevent Drake’s attorneys from accessing confidential documents—such as executive compensation plans and Kendrick Lamar’s contract terms.
Drake sued UMG in federal court in New York because UMG intentionally pushed Not Like Us despite containing false claims that would damage his reputation. Rather than suing Lamar, Drake is suing UMG for allegedly fueling controversy for financial gain.
The lawsuit alleges that going viral with the song caused Drake to suffer serious repercussions, including reported violence on his Toronto estate, cyberbullying, and a tarnished brand reputation right as his career was on top. That timing is significant because Drake will soon be in contract renewal negotiations with UMG, and his lawsuit alleges that the label may have used the diss track to gain leverage.
Adding another layer to the dispute, Drake filed a petition in Texas, making similar allegations against UMG. Initially, he also targeted iHeartMedia, accusing the radio giant of artificially boosting Not Like Us, though he later dropped that complaint.
The Drake-Kendrick Lamar rivalry has been brewing for over a decade, but it reignited in 2024 after Drake released First Person Shooter, a track featuring J. Cole that referred to Drake, Lamar, and Cole as the “big three” of rap. Lamar pushed back with a verse on Future’s Like That, clarifying that he rejected the comparison.
From there, the feud escalated into a series of diss tracks, with both artists making serious, unverified allegations. Drake, in particular, stirred controversy with The Heart Part 6, in which he suggested he had deliberately planted false information about having an eleven-year-old daughter—bait that Lamar allegedly took.
Now, UMG is fighting back against Drake’s legal efforts. The company has filed a motion asking the court to block the discovery process, allowing Drake’s legal team to access internal documents and communications.
Specifically, Drake’s team is seeking:
- All contracts between UMG and Kendrick Lamar
- Details on UMG’s executive pay structure
- Annual incentive plans for Interscope CEO John Janick
UMG’s lawyers argue that this request is excessive and irrelevant. In their filing, they stated,
“Proceeding with discovery while the motion [to dismiss] is pending would waste the parties’ resources and would constitute an undue burden on the defendant.”
This comes after UMG filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely, calling Drake’s lawsuit a desperate attempt to shift blame. In their filing, they argued that Drake simply;
“lost a rap battle he provoked and in which he willingly participated.”
Drake’s attorney, Michael Gottlieb, quickly responded to UMG’s blocking discovery. He called the company’s motion;
“a ploy to delay producing documents and communications that UMG hopes to keep hidden.”
According to Gottlieb, if UMG has nothing to hide, it should have no problem complying with the discovery request. He insists that this process is standard and necessary to uncover whether UMG unfairly manipulated the success of Not Like Us through artificial streaming, pay-for-play tactics, and influencer marketing strategies.
The upcoming court hearings in April will play a crucial role in determining the future of this lawsuit:
- April 7, 2025: A Texas court will hear Drake’s request for discovery.
- April 23, 2025: The court will consider UMG’s motion to dismiss Drake’s Texas petition.
The dismissal hearing was initially set for March 24, but UMG successfully pushed it back. This means Drake will get to argue for discovery before the court decides whether to throw out his case.
In New York, the legal fight is also intensifying. UMG has moved to dismiss Drake’s lawsuit while simultaneously trying to prevent discovery from proceeding. Meanwhile, Drake’s team continues to push for access to key documents, hoping to expose what they believe is evidence of unethical business practices.
This legal battle is about more than just a rap feud—it raises serious questions about the role of record labels in managing artist conflicts.
- Should labels be held responsible for promoting music that contains potentially defamatory claims?
- How much influence do record companies have in escalating feuds for financial gain?
- What role do artificial streaming and corporate strategy play in the success of diss tracks?
The case is particularly unique because UMG represents both Drake and Kendrick Lamar. This puts the label in a complicated position, forced to defend itself against one of its most prominent artists while protecting another.
The legal battle is far from over, with the upcoming court hearings. If Drake’s request for discovery is granted, UMG could be forced to reveal sensitive internal documents, potentially exposing industry secrets about how significant labels handle artist conflicts and manipulate streaming numbers.
On the other hand, if UMG’s dismissal motion succeeds, Drake’s lawsuit could be dead before it gains traction.
