Drake has officially withdrawn his lawsuit accusing Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify of artificially boosting the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us.
The lawsuit, initially filed in November 2024, alleged a coordinated effort involving bots, payola, and other illicit methods to inflate the track’s success. The song, which targeted Drake amid an ongoing feud with Lamar, had sparked considerable controversy in the music industry.
On Tuesday, January 14, Drake’s company, Frozen Moments LLC, voluntarily dropped the legal action in a filing in a Manhattan court, stating the dismissal would be “without costs to any party.”
Despite withdrawing this case, Drake continues to pursue a similar lawsuit filed in Texas against UMG and iHeartRadio. That separate legal action alleges that Not Like Us is defamatory, accusing Drake of being a “sex offender.”
Representatives for Drake, UMG, and Spotify have not yet commented on the recent developments, leaving fans and industry insiders speculating about the underlying reasons for Drake’s partial retreat from the legal battle.
Drake’s initial decision to take legal action shocked the music industry, as the feud between him and Kendrick Lamar had been largely confined to diss tracks and public exchanges. For a rapper to escalate such a dispute to the courtroom was unprecedented and controversial.
The move drew criticism from some corners of the hip-hop community, with detractors questioning whether legal intervention was appropriate for a feud rooted in the competitive nature of rap culture. The backlash highlighted a deeper tension between artistic rivalry and legal boundaries in the industry.
The lawsuit filed in New York accused UMG of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a statute more commonly associated with cases against organized crime.
Drake claimed that Spotify was complicit, alleging that the streaming platform had offered reduced licensing fees in exchange for promoting Lamar’s track to users. These accusations painted a picture of a highly orchestrated scheme, sparking widespread debate about the ethical and legal implications of such practices.
Unlike traditional lawsuits, Drake’s legal actions were filed as “pre-action” petitions. These filings sought to obtain evidence and information to build a potential case rather than presenting a full-fledged lawsuit.
Critics, including Spotify, quickly pointed out that this approach could indicate the claims lacked sufficient merit to survive formal legal scrutiny. In its response, Spotify dismissed the allegations as “false” and described Drake’s legal maneuver as a “subversion of the normal judicial process” that should be rejected outright.
UMG had not publicly responded to the lawsuit before it was withdrawn. However, Spotify’s sharp rebuttal suggested the company was prepared to challenge the allegations vigorously.
The streaming giant argued that the claims were baseless and designed to draw attention rather than resolve genuine legal grievances. Spotify’s stance reflected the broader industry’s skepticism about the validity of Drake’s accusations and his decision to air them in court.
In a filing on Tuesday, Drake’s attorneys revealed that discussions had taken place with both UMG and Spotify prior to the withdrawal. While Spotify raised no objections to the dismissal, the filing noted that UMG had “reserved its position,” leaving open the possibility of further legal action or commentary from the label. This development has raised questions about whether the withdrawal signifies a resolution or a strategic retreat on Drake’s part.
Drake’s relationship with UMG, where he has spent his entire career, adds another layer of complexity to the dispute. Initially signed to Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint under Republic Records, Drake later secured a direct deal with Republic.
The lawsuit’s allegations of collusion and defamation represented a significant rupture in this long-standing partnership, further intensifying the public scrutiny surrounding the case.
The ongoing feud between Drake and Lamar has long captivated fans, with diss tracks serving as a battleground for lyrical supremacy. The controversy surrounding Not Like Us and the subsequent lawsuits have taken the rivalry to unprecedented heights, raising critical questions about the intersection of artistry, ethics, and legal intervention in the music industry. The outcome of the Texas lawsuit could set a significant precedent for how such disputes are handled in the future.
As the dust begins to settle on Drake’s New York case, attention now shifts to the unresolved Texas lawsuit and the broader implications of this high-profile clash.
Whether the feud will return to its musical roots or continue to play out in legal arenas remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes have never been higher for the artists, their labels, and the industry at large.
