Drake files lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us

Drake has launched legal action against Universal Music and Spotify, accusing them of artificially boosting streams of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track against him, Not Like Us.

In papers filed in New York, Drake’s company, Frozen Moments LLC, accused the companies of engaging in an illegal ”scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to promote Lamar’s song.

Universal Music ”did not rely on chance,” Drake’s lawyers alleged. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”

A spokesperson for Universal called the claims “offensive and untrue”, adding that “fans choose the music they want to hear”.

Spotify and Lamar have yet to respond.

The petition is not a full lawsuit but a so-called “pre-action petition”, under which Drake’s lawyers can to ask the court to order Universal and Spotify to preserve all relevant documents and information, ahead of future legal action.

Not Like Us was widely seen as the decisive blow in an escalating rap beef between Drake and Lamar earlier this year.

Drake’s court filing highlights the song’s runaway success – 96 million streams in seven days, number one in the US charts, and a top 10 radio hit – but suggests those achievements were artificially inflated.

His lawyers claim that Universal “conspired with and paid currently unknown parties” to “artificially” boost the prominence of Not Like Us.

They allege that the label cut its royalty rates for the song by 30%, in exchange for Spotify recommending it to users.

The filing also cites supposed claims from a “whistleblower” on a podcast, who said they were paid $2,500 to set up software ”bots” that would stream the song on repeat, turning it into “a crazy hit”.

The effort spread to other streaming services, Drake’s lawyers allege, referencing online reports that fans who asked Apple’s voice assistant to play Drake’s album Certified Loverboy were instead delivered Not Like Us.

The legal filing is a surprising coda to the musicians’ feud, but it also represents a rift between Drake and Universal – the label that has represented him for his entire career.

In court documents, the star’s lawyers say he tried to address these allegations in private but that the label has “no interest in taking responsibility for its misconduct.”

Furthermore, they claim Universal made “an apparent effort to conceal its schemes”, which included firing staff “perceived as having loyalty to Drake”.

“Streaming is a zero-sum game,” they argue. “Every time a song breaks through, it means another artist does not.” As a result, they claim, Drake suffered “economic harm” at Lamar’s expense.

A spokesperson for Universal rejected the claims.

“The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” they said in a statement.

“We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”

The legal filing came days after Lamar released a surprise album, GNX, which is widely seen as a follow-up to Not Like Us.

His diss track was recently nominated for four Grammy awards, including song of the year, and he has been booked to play next year’s Super Bowl halftime show.

However, he lags behind Drake in terms of popularity. On Spotify, the rapper is the 23rd most-streamed artist in the world, while Drake places 13th.