Drake Initiates Second Legal Action Over Kendrick Lamar Defamatory Lyrics

This week Canadian rapper Drake initiated legal action agasint his record label, Universal Music Group, and Spotify accusing them of artificially boosting West Coast rapper Kendrick Lamar's Drake diss track, "Not Like Us [click here if you missed that]."

Drake initiates a second action accusing UMG of allowing Kendrick to defame him...

From Variety

Just one day after Drake filed a petition accusing Universal Music of conspiring with Spotify to falsely boost the numbers of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” the Canadian rapper has filed a second action, this one in Texas, claiming that UMG was aware that the song “falsely” accused him of p***philia, but chose to distribute it anyway.

It also claims that UMG “funneled payments” to iHeart, the country’s largest radio network, as part of a “pay-to-play scheme” to promote the song on radio.

With regard to the defamation allegations, the petition says the company “could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed. But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”

To be clear, these petitions are not lawsuits: They’re pre-action filings intended to take depositions from key figures at UMG and iHeart in order to obtain more information for a potential future lawsuit. While the petition claims Drake’s attorneys already have enough evidence of defamation, they say they are considering allegations of civil fraud and racketeering.

Similarly, the petition stops short of actually alleging defamation, but it does say Drake’s attorneys have “amassed sufficient facts to pursue certain tortious claims against UMG, including, but not limited to, a claim for defamation, but currently lacks factual support necessary to determine whether he may bring claims of civil fraud and racketeering against UMG and its many (as of yet) unidentified co-conspirators who violated payola laws and accepted illicit payments, and other things of value, from UMG without disclosure.”