Drake has officially filed an amended ‘Not Like Us’ defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group. Photo Credit: musicisentropy
Right on cue, Drake and his legal team have fired off an amended “Not Like Us” defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG).
The “Nokia” act and his counsel submitted the bolstered complaint yesterday, just a couple weeks removed from a major discovery win. As we noted closer to April’s beginning, the presiding judge had given Drake until the 16th to either respond to UMG’s firmly worded dismissal motion or file an amended lawsuit.
The rapper and his attorneys promptly committed to the latter approach, and the updated action runs 23 pages longer than the original. In keeping with the increased length, the 104-page amended suit covers a bit of new ground while reiterating the initial defamation claims.
First, the amended suit elaborates on the aggressive promotional push that UMG allegedly gave “Not Like Us” despite knowing of the “harm” it’d allegedly caused Drake. This push refers in large part to Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
“The Recording was performed during the 2025 Super Bowl and broadcast to the largest audience for a Super Bowl halftime show ever, over 133 million people, including millions of children, and millions more who had never before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it,” reads one section of the suit.
“On information and belief,” the legal text proceeds, “Kendrick Lamar would not have been permitted to perform during the Super Bowl Performance unless the word ‘pedophile’ (in the phrase ‘certified pedophiles’) was omitted from the lyrics—that is because nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory to falsely brand someone a ‘certified pedophile.’”
From there, the expanded action explores in greater detail UMG execs’ alleged coordinated effort to promote “Not Like Us” (and the purportedly unprecedented commercial prominence thereof) on social media.
On this front, the suit now mentions a February LinkedIn post from Interscope exec Jessica Staats. Plus, by the plaintiff’s count, the number of “Not Like Us” articles published by Complex (in which UMG has a stake) swelled from 50 to 70 or so between mid-January and mid-April.
Similarly, Drake and his counsel have doubled down on their claims that UMG arranged for (or at least took steps to encourage) the Grammys success of “Not Like Us.”
“On information and belief,” one new line claims, “UMG conferred benefits and leveraged existing business relationships to secure Grammy nominations (and eventually wins) for the [‘Not Like Us’] Recording and Video.”
Lastly, in terms of the suit’s fresh components, Drake has dialed back some streaming-fraud claims; the original suit’s “UMG Caused Third Parties to Fake Streams” looks to be absent from its amended counterpart.
Nevertheless, Drake remains adamant that UMG engaged in a number of non-organic promo efforts for “Not Like Us,” including but not limited to a multifaceted arrangement with Spotify. As laid out by the plaintiff, this alleged arrangement went well beyond paid promotion and affected users’ search results and more.
Unsurprisingly, the defamation dispute is still spilling out of the courtroom and into the media.
In a statement provided to DMN, Drake lead attorney Michael Gottlieb emphasized an ongoing objective of holding UMG “accountable.”
“Drake’s amended complaint makes an already strong case stronger,” the Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Gottlieb said. “UMG’s PR ‘spin’ and failed efforts to avoid discovery cannot suppress the facts and the truth. With discovery now moving forward, Drake will expose the evidence of UMG’s misconduct, and UMG will be held accountable for the consequences of its ill-conceived decisions.”
And in a response of its own, UMG expressed, among other things, the belief that Drake is being “misled by his legal representatives” when it comes to the “absurd” complaint.
Recommended Comments
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.