Drake Launches High-Profile Lawsuit Over Super Bowl Performance
Superstar rapper Drake has escalated his legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG) by filing an amended lawsuit that directly references Kendrick Lamar’s widely-viewed Super Bowl halftime performance. Drake claims Lamar’s hit song Not Like Us — performed during the halftime show and the Grammy Awards — falsely suggested he is a pedophile. Although the term was omitted during the Super Bowl performance, Drake argues the message was clear, defamatory, and widely understood by viewers. He says the damage from this performance was intensified by UMG’s alleged promotional efforts to monetize the controversy. This lawsuit now marks a significant moment in the long-standing rivalry between the two rap icons.
The Feud: A Decade-Long Battle Between Two Titans of Hip-Hop
The public tension between Drake and Kendrick Lamar isn’t new — it stretches back nearly a decade. Both artists have traded lyrical jabs and subliminal shots through a series of diss tracks and interviews. The most recent escalation began when Drake released Family Matters on May 3, 2024, where he accused Lamar of domestic violence and questioned the legitimacy of one of Lamar’s children. In response, Lamar dropped Not Like Us the next day, a song that gained viral popularity. A key line — “Drake, I hear you like ’em young” — became the centerpiece of controversy, especially after Lamar sang it live during the Super Bowl. Drake claims this feud, once confined to music, has now crossed legal and ethical lines, warranting a full-blown lawsuit.
Also Read : Sunny Deol’s ‘Jaat’ Crosses Rs. 76 Crore Worldwide: Solid Week 1 Despite Mixed Reviews
Drake’s Claims: Allegations of Defamation and Character Assassination
According to Drake’s legal filing, UMG’s promotion of Not Like Us deliberately damaged his reputation and contributed to a wave of online abuse and real-life threats. He states that UMG profited by positioning him as a villain and allowing Lamar to perform a song that painted him as a pedophile — a label that, even when implied, can have life-altering consequences. Drake’s amended lawsuit includes claims of defamation, emotional distress, deceptive business practices, and even possible RICO violations. The Canadian rapper stresses that Lamar’s line, “Drake, I hear you like ’em young,” had an obvious defamatory subtext, understood by viewers even without the explicit term being used. He calls the Super Bowl show “the first, and hopefully the last, halftime performance designed to destroy another artist’s reputation.”
UMG Responds: Denies Allegations, Defends Artistic Freedom
Universal Music Group, which has represented Drake for 16 years, responded forcefully to the lawsuit. The label dismissed the claims as “absurd” and characterized the legal action as an attack on creative expression. In its official statement, UMG said, “Drake, unquestionably one of the world’s most accomplished artists and with whom we’ve enjoyed a 16-year successful relationship, is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another.” The company maintains that Lamar’s work falls under protected artistic speech and that the lyrics, while controversial, are a part of the longstanding tradition of battle rap. UMG has already moved to dismiss the original lawsuit and will seek to do the same with the amended version.
The Real-World Consequences of a Chart-Topping Diss Track
Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us has become more than a diss track — it has earned major accolades and commercial success. The song topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart for three consecutive weeks and went on to win Record and Song of the Year at the 2025 Grammy Awards. The track’s popularity was amplified by its controversial nature and the high-profile feud with Drake. However, Drake claims the song has had real-world consequences. He alleges that since its release and promotion, he and his family have received death threats. He also cites specific incidents, including an attempted break-in and a shooting outside his residence, as evidence that Lamar’s lyrics and UMG’s role in their amplification have put his life at risk.
The Legal Framework: A Case That Goes Beyond Music
Drake’s lawsuit doesn’t just accuse UMG of defamation. It takes things several steps further by invoking claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — a statute often used in organized crime cases. The lawsuit also includes accusations of false advertising and deceptive business practices, suggesting that UMG misrepresented its intentions while working to maximize profits at Drake’s expense. This could mark one of the first times that a major artist has used the RICO Act in a dispute against a record label. Legal experts say the case will test the boundaries between free speech and defamation, and may even redefine how far labels can go in marketing controversial content from their artists.
What’s at Stake: Reputation, Revenue, and Industry Precedent
If Drake succeeds, the lawsuit could set a powerful precedent for how artists protect their reputations in an era of viral content and diss culture. A favorable ruling for Drake may also force record labels to take a more cautious approach when promoting tracks that involve personal attacks. On the other hand, a dismissal or ruling in favor of UMG could reinforce the protection of artistic freedom in battle rap and beyond. Either way, the implications of this case go far beyond two artists trading insults. At stake are millions in revenue, public trust, and the evolving rules of reputation management in the music industry.
A Legal Drama That Mirrors the Music Industry’s Changing Ethics
Drake’s lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us has transformed from a musical beef into a complex legal dispute with industry-wide implications. Whether viewed as a justified reaction to character assassination or an overreach that endangers creative expression, the case is bound to spark debate. As of now, the Southern District of New York will decide the outcome in Graham v. UMG Recordings Inc. While the music continues, the legal battle is just heating up — and the verdict could shape the future of how artists and labels handle controversial content.
