After losing the 2024 feud with Kendrick Lamar, whose ‘Not Like Us’ broke streaming records, Drake’s Frozen Moments LLC filed legal action against Universal Music Group and Spotify. The suit accuses them of artificially inflating the diss track’s success, a controversial move attempting to fight a lost rap battle in court.
Key Facts
- Subject: Drake (Frozen Moments LLC)
- Targets: Universal Music Group; Spotify
- Allegation: Artificial inflation of ‘Not Like Us’
- Context: After losing 2024 Kendrick feud
- Status: Legal action; disputed
After the heated feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar earlier in 2024, Rolling Stone declared Kendrick the victor while his incendiary diss track “Not Like Us” racked up over 900 million Spotify streams and broke the record for most weeks at No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot Rap Songs chart.[1][2][3]
In response, Drake’s Frozen Moments LLC has filed groundbreaking legal action against Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify, accusing them of orchestrating a sophisticated scheme to artificially inflate streams for “Not Like Us.”[4] A separate petition filed later the same day (November, 25, 2024) also accused UMG of defamation.[5]
It’s worth noting both legal filings are not yet a formal lawsuit but “pre-action” petitions.[6] This legal procedure, permitted under New York law, is designed to obtain information in preparation for filing a potential lawsuit.[7]
Read on for details about the two court petitions filed by Drizzy below.
First Court Petition: Streaming Manipulation Allegations
- Petition Filed: The petition was submitted in New York State Supreme Court on November 25, 2024. [8] [9]
- Bot Usage Allegation: Claims suggest bots were employed to artificially inflate streaming numbers for Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.”[10]
- Reduced Licensing Fee: Drake alleges that UMG secured a 30% discounted licensing deal with Spotify as part of the scheme.[11]
- Pay-for-Play Accusations: The petition also highlights alleged pay-for-play arrangements with radio stations to boost airplay for the track.[12]
Specific Allegations:
- UMG is accused of employing bots to artificially inflate streaming numbers.[13]
- Allegedly paid radio promoters to boost airplay for targeted tracks.[14]
- Claims include manipulating digital assistants like Siri to redirect users.[15]
Second Court Petition: Defamation and False Representations
Drake’s second legal action filed later on November 25, 2024 targets alleged defamatory practices by UMG, including:[16]
- Allegations of “funneling payments” to iHeartRadio [17]
- Claims of a widespread “pay-to-play scheme” [18]
- Assertion that UMG misrepresented the popularity of songs [19]
Legal Strategy
Drake’s legal team is pursuing:
- Pre-Trial Discovery: Initial phase to gather and exchange evidence between parties.[20]
- Potential RICO Act Violations: Investigating allegations of racketeering and organized fraudulent activity.[21]
- Evidence Preservation: Ensuring all relevant materials are safeguarded for an expansive future legal case.[22]
UMG’s Response
Universal Music Group has firmly rejected the allegations, stating, “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue. 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.”[23]
Drake’s Legal Battle Could Reshape Streaming Industry Standards
Though on the outside, it may appear Drake is mainly taking legal action to protect his own reputation, he has the potential to stir up the way Digital Service Providers deal with data, royalties, and transparency for all artists.[24] Drake’s legal action could be a game-changer for all artists and listeners on streaming platforms.[25]
Overall, it would coulf to factual chart data, transparent metrics, and a more even playing field for artists to appear on DSP playlists. [26]
Legal Experts Question Viability of Drake’s Defamation Case
Rolling Stone consulted Brian “Z” Zisook, co-founder of Audiomack, and entertainment lawyers Kevin Casini and another unnamed source for their perspectives on the legal filings involving Drake.[27] All three experts expressed skepticism about the viability of the case, particularly the defamation claim within the context of a rap battle.[28] They agreed that the suit appears tenuous and unclear in its ultimate objective.[29] [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/kendrick-lamar-drake-beef-who-won-1235014499/
[2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drake-accuses-spotify-umg-artificially-inflating-streams-kendrick-lamar-not-like-us/ [3]https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/kendrick-lamar-not-like-us-number-1-record-rap-songs-chart-1235794635/ [4] https://variety.com/2024/music/news/drake-claims-universal-spotify-artificially-inflated-kendrick-lamar-numbers-for-not-like-us-diss-1236223077/ [5]https://www.billboard.com/pro/drake-second-legal-action-umg-iheart-pay-for-play-defamation/ [6]https://variety.com/2024/music/news/drake-claims-universal-spotify-artificially-inflated-kendrick-lamar-numbers-for-not-like-us-diss-1236223077/ [7] Ibid. [8]https://www.lawinc.com/drake-files-lawsuits-universal-music-group-streaming-manipulation-defamation [9]https://variety.com/2024/music/news/drake-claims-universal-spotify-artificially-inflated-kendrick-lamar-numbers-for-not-like-us-diss-1236223077/ [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid. [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid. [23] https://www.billboard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/november-26-2024-billboard-bulletin.pdf [24] https://rollingout.com/2024/11/30/drakes-legal-battle-with-umg-and-spotify/ [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid. [27] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/experts-on-drakes-legal-filings-against-umg-1235182844/ [28] Ibid. [29] Ibid.
