{"id":120889,"date":"2025-04-17T06:03:19","date_gmt":"2025-04-17T06:03:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/drake-accuses-umg-of-slandering-him-by-featuring-not-like-us-during-the-super-bowl\/"},"modified":"2025-04-17T06:03:19","modified_gmt":"2025-04-17T06:03:19","slug":"drake-accuses-umg-of-slandering-him-by-featuring-not-like-us-during-the-super-bowl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/drake-accuses-umg-of-slandering-him-by-featuring-not-like-us-during-the-super-bowl\/","title":{"rendered":"Drake Accuses UMG of Slandering Him by Featuring ‘Not Like Us’ During the Super Bowl"},"content":{"rendered":"

What prompted Drake to file an amended complaint against Universal Music Group?<\/strong> How does the amended complaint expand the allegations made in the initial lawsuit?<\/strong> What specific accusations does Drake’s legal team make regarding Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl Halftime Show?<\/strong> What does Drake\u2019s legal team claim about the streaming practices associated with \u201cNot Like Us\u201d?<\/strong> How has Universal Music Group responded to the allegations made by Drake in his lawsuit?<\/strong> What are the potential implications for Drake if UMG\u2019s claims about the lawsuit’s merit hold true?<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Drake has filed an amended complaint in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar\u2018s \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d stating that the label used Lamar\u2019s wins at the Grammy Awards and performance of the song during the Super Bowl Halftime Show to further promote the single and damage his reputation. <\/p>\n

The amended complaint, filed on Wednesday and reviewed by Variety<\/em>, expands the January suit from 81 to 107 pages, focusing on events that took place since the initial filing. His legal team claims that Lamar\u2019s Super Bowl Halftime Show was shown to over 133 million people \u2014 \u201cincluding millions of children,\u201d it notes \u2014 who had \u201cnever before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it. It was the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint alleges that Lamar purposely excluded the word \u201cpedophile\u201d during the Super Bowl performance and that \u201con information and belief,\u201d he would not have been permitted to perform unless it was omitted from the lyrics. \u201cThat is because nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory to falsely brand someone a \u2018certified pedophile,’\u201d reads the complaint. Drake\u2018s team asserts that UMG knowingly negotiated and promoted the Super Bowl performance after the initial lawsuit was filed, thereby causing intentional harm to Drake.<\/p>\n

Drake\u2019s counsel also points out that \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d which won song and record of the year at the 2025 Grammy Awards, was played during the telecast and televised to 15 million viewers, which would not have happened without UMG\u2019s consent. They note that audience members in attendance sang along to \u201cNot Like Us\u201d during the telecast, but that the Grammys\u2019 YouTube page excluded it from a subsequently posted clip. Additionally, they state that UMG CEO Lucian Grainge high-fived and hugged Dr. Dre while \u201cNot Like Us\u201d played, though a post-mortem YouTube clip of the high-five doesn\u2019t include the song.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also worth noting that in the initial complaint, Drake\u2019s attorneys accused UMG of conspiring and paying unknown parties to use bots to artificially inflate the success of the song on Spotify. Drake\u2019s counsel based the accusations on the appearance of an unknown person who said on DJ Akademiks\u2019 livestream that Interscope, Lamar\u2019s label, paid him via third parties to use bots in the days following the song\u2019s release.<\/p>\n

The amended complaint generalizes those accusations, removing specific references to the stream and instead claiming that \u201cUMG was aware that third parties were using bots to stream the Recording and turned a blind eye, despite having the power to stop such behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a statement to Variety<\/em>, Drake\u2019s lead attorney Michael Gottlieb, partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher said, \u201cDrake\u2019s amended complaint makes an already strong case stronger. UMG\u2019s PR \u2018spin\u2019 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\u2019s misconduct, and UMG will be held accountable for the consequences of its ill-conceived decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

UMG issued a lengthy response to the amended complaint, stating to Variety<\/em>, \u201cDrake, unquestionably one of the world\u2019s most accomplished artists and with whom we\u2019ve enjoyed a 16-year successful relationship, is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another.<\/p>\n

In Texas last November, his counsel instituted a legal proceeding with much fanfare and bluster. On Monday, they quietly dropped the case.<\/p>\n

In New York in January, Drake\u2019s counsel filed a defamation lawsuit. Fearful of being sanctioned by the court for asserting false allegations, tonight they amended the complaint to withdraw them only to add more baseless allegations.<\/p>\n

Two weeks ago, his representatives celebrated a \u2018win\u2019: the granting of a routine discovery motion. That \u2018win\u2019 will become a loss if this frivolous and reckless lawsuit is not dropped in its entirety because Drake will personally be subject to discovery as well. As the old saying goes, \u2018be careful what you wish for.\u2019<\/p>\n

Both the Texas and New York proceedings are an affront to all artists and creative expression. Should his legal representatives senselessly keep the New York lawsuit alive, we will demonstrate that all remaining claims are without merit. It is shameful that these foolish and frivolous legal theatrics continue. They are reputationally and financially costly to Drake and have no chance of success.\u201d<\/p>\n

Drake initially filed his lawsuit against UMG for defamation and harassment in January, accusing the company of spreading the \u201cfalse and malicious narrative\u201d that he is a pedophile via \u201cNot Like Us.\u201d Among the claims made in the initial suit, Drake claimed that UMG knew Lamar\u2019s lyrics and images in the song\u2019s music video were false and dangerous and that it \u201cchose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.\u201d<\/p>\n

Additionally, the suit claimed that the cover image of \u201cNot Like Us\u201d \u2014 a photo of Drake\u2019s home dotted with markers that traditionally note the presence of registered sex offenders \u2014 led to a shooting incident at his house days after the song\u2019s release, as well as two trespassers on the property.<\/p>\n

In March, UMG filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that he was only taking legal action because he \u201clost a rap battle.\u201d \u201cInstead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds,\u201d read the filing. A hearing for the suit dismissal is currently scheduled for June 30.<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, Drake made some progress after the judge denied Universal\u2019s request to stay the discovery process, clearing a path for Drake to request access to documents including Lamar\u2019s contracts with the label and compensation and incentives like salaries and bonuses for Interscope CEO John Janick and other executives. As part of the legal process, UMG will also be making its own discovery requests.<\/p>\n

In the world of music and entertainment, few names resonate as strongly as that of Drake. The Canadian rapper, singer, and songwriter has consistently ranked among the industry’s top artists, known for his chart-topping hits, emotional lyrics, and cultural impact. With such a high profile comes intense scrutiny and, at times, controversy. Recently, Drake found himself at the center of a legal dispute involving Universal Music Group (UMG) and the promotion of a song titled “Not Like Us.” The situation underscores the complexities of the music industry and the delicate balance between artistic promotion and perceived defamation.<\/p>\n

The controversy erupted during the Super Bowl, one of the largest sporting events in the world, when UMG showcased “Not Like Us” as part of its promotional efforts. The timing of this marketing move led to an immediate backlash from Drake, who swiftly claimed that the prominent promotion amounted to defamation against his character and brand. According to Drake, the association of a song that he did not endorse or support with a high-profile event like the Super Bowl was an affront to his artistic integrity and reputation as a leading figure in the music industry.<\/p>\n

The crux of Drake\u2019s argument lies in the notion of artistic representation and the implications of having one\u2019s name linked to a piece of work that does not authentically represent one\u2019s image or values. Drake asserts that “Not Like Us,” while perhaps an attention-grabbing title, does not align with the themes and messages he wishes to promote through his music. This disassociation reveals a deeper issue of how artists control their brand and the narratives surrounding their work.<\/p>\n

From an industry perspective, the promotion of “Not Like Us” at such a monumental event as the Super Bowl signals a strategic move by UMG to capitalize on the huge viewership and cultural engagement associated with the game. For record labels, collaborations and promotional activities are often calculated risks taken to either elevate a lesser-known artist or to redefine the brand of an established star. In this case, UMG seems to have underestimated the potential backlash from Drake, who has long been known for his meticulous attention to how his brand is portrayed.<\/p>\n

Drake\u2019s response highlights an essential conversation within the music industry about consent and endorsement. Artists must navigate an intricate landscape where their work and brand are interwoven with their personal lives and public personas. A misstep in promotion can lead to reputational damage, which is particularly concerning for artists at the level of Drake, whose career relies heavily on public perception and fan loyalty.<\/p>\n

Legal experts suggest that Drake’s allegations against UMG could set the stage for a wider discussion regarding defamation in the music industry. Defamation typically involves making false statements that damage someone’s reputation. However, the complexities arise in artistic contexts, where subjective interpretations and informal connections often dilute strict definitions. If Drake’s legal team can prove that UMG’s promotion of “Not Like Us” misrepresented his artistic identity or damaged his standing in the industry, this could open doors for similar claims from other artists in the future.<\/p>\n

Moreover, this situation poses an interesting dichotomy between artistic autonomy and corporate interests within the music industry. Drake\u2019s claim against UMG raises questions about how much control artists have over their image and the products associated with them. In an age where branding is everything, the intersection between an artist’s work and their public persona becomes increasingly sensitive. The impact of promotional strategies can effectively shape audience perceptions, sometimes without regard for the artist’s own narrative.<\/p>\n

The implications of this event extend beyond Drake and UMG; it serves as a broader indicator of how the music industry is evolving in its relationship with artists. As streaming has reshaped the economic landscape of music, issues of rights, representation, and brand loyalty are more pressing than ever. Artists are increasingly vocal about how they are marketed and the narratives that are spun around their work, leading to conflicts that reflect a more complex understanding of artistic identity.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, Drake’s claims against UMG regarding the promotion of “Not Like Us” bring to light important conversations surrounding artist integrity, brand management, and the role of labels in shaping public perceptions. As the music industry continues to evolve, navigating these challenges becomes imperative for both artists and record labels. The outcome of this legal dispute could set a precedent, potentially redefining how artists protect their identities in an ever-competitive landscape. For fans and industry insiders alike, this controversy serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between artistic promotion and personal expression, emphasizing that the story behind the music is as critical as the music itself. The coming months will be crucial, as the legal ramifications of this issue could resonate throughout the industry, prompting a reevaluation of how artistic identities are marketed in the future.<\/p>\n

Drake is reportedly pursuing legal action against Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging that the company has defamed him by promoting a song titled “Not Like Us” during the Super Bowl. The promotion of this track, according to Drake, misrepresents him and could negatively impact his reputation. His legal team is expected to argue that UMG’s actions were not authorized and that they were misleading to fans and the public. The case raises questions about artist rights and the implications of promotional strategies in the music industry.<\/p>\n

Tm-En-5<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What prompted Drake to file an amended complaint against Universal Music Group? How does the amended complaint expand the allegations made in the initial lawsuit? What specific accusations does Drake’s legal team make regarding Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl Halftime Show? What does Drake\u2019s legal team claim about the streaming practices associated with \u201cNot Like Us\u201d? […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":110274,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[3603,7680,17427,24549,30486,3988,30485],"class_list":["post-120889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-mazagine","tag-accuses","tag-bowl","tag-drake","tag-featuring","tag-slandering","tag-super","tag-umg"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120889\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}