Drake Pushes for Universal Music Group’s Emails in Kendrick Lamar Diss Track Dispute

Drake is intensifying his legal battle against Universal Music Group (UMG), seeking internal communications regarding the promotion of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us. The rapper, who recently settled a dispute with iHeartMedia, alleges that UMG engaged in covert deals to boost the song’s popularity through secret payments and reduced licensing rates.

Drake’s Allegations Against UMG

Drake’s legal action stems from claims that UMG deliberately promoted Not Like Us as part of a larger campaign to tarnish his reputation. The Toronto rapper, signed under Republic Records (a UMG division), believes that the label facilitated the track’s virality by allegedly making illegal payments to third parties, including radio stations and streaming services. His lawsuit also accuses UMG of violating payola laws—federal regulations that prohibit undisclosed financial incentives for airplay.

According to Drake’s legal team, confidential sources revealed that UMG has engaged in “pay-for-play” schemes, artificially inflating streaming numbers through bots and preferential deals. This accusation, if proven, could have serious implications for the music industry, as payola remains a hot-button issue with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) actively investigating similar practices.

Legal Developments and UMG’s Defense

On Tuesday, a federal judge denied UMG’s attempt to halt the discovery process in the defamation lawsuit. This decision allows Drake to proceed with obtaining internal communications, financial records, and promotional agreements related to Not Like Us. His lawyers argue that these documents are crucial in determining whether UMG acted merely as a neutral distributor or if it actively orchestrated the song’s success.

Drake’s Lawsuit legal motion demands:

Emails and documents outlining Universal Music Group’s promotional strategy for Not Like Us

Details of agreements with iHeartMedia and streaming platforms

Financial records related to revenue generated by the song

Correspondence regarding potential influencer marketing deals

UMG, however, has maintained that its actions are protected under the First Amendment. The label claims that its promotion of Not Like Us falls within the realm of free speech and that Drake’s lawsuit is an attempt to stifle legitimate business practices. In response, UMG filed a motion under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which aims to prevent lawsuits designed to suppress free expression.

Joe Budden Calls Out Drake Over UMG Lawsuit: “You’re Ruining Hip-Hop”

Drake’s Settlement with iHeartMedia

Drake’s dispute with iHeartMedia, one of the largest radio conglomerates, ended in a settlement last week. While the terms remain undisclosed, reports indicate that no monetary payment was involved. In exchange for documents proving iHeartMedia did not engage in wrongdoing, Drake agreed to drop his petition against the company.

The FCC’s ongoing investigation into iHeartMedia’s alleged practice of compelling artists to perform at its events for reduced pay could further support Drake’s case. If the commission finds that the company engaged in unethical promotions of pay-for-play, it could strengthen claims that the music industry is plagued by behind-the-scenes manipulation.

What’s Next in the Case?

With discovery moving forward, the next step in Drake’s Lawsuit is to depose a UMG representative and review the requested documents. If these records reveal undisclosed pay-for-play deals, the case could set a precedent for transparency in music promotion.

For now, Drake continues to fight what he describes as an industry-wide issue, ensuring that labels are held accountable for their influence over radio and streaming platforms. Whether this battle leads to a major shakeup remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly puts the spotlight on the evolving dynamics of power in the music industry.