The rap world’s most intense rivalry has officially moved from the recording studio to the courtroom. In a dramatic escalation of his legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG), Drake is now pushing for something unprecedented: complete, unredacted access to Kendrick Lamar’s recording contract. This move, which comes in the wake of Lamar’s hit diss track “Not Like Us,” transforms a public feud into a complex legal case with potentially significant implications for the music industry's power dynamics.
Drake’s lawsuit against his own label, UMG, alleges that the company supported and profited from defamatory accusations made in Lamar's diss track. By demanding Lamar's contract, Drake's legal team is seeking to build a case around the idea that UMG had a clear financial motive to let the song flourish, even at his expense. This is more than a simple request for information; it is a calculated move to expose the inner workings of the label and prove that their actions were driven by profit over principle.
The court filings reveal the extent of Drake’s demands. He is not only seeking Lamar’s full contract with Interscope Records—a division of UMG—but also a trove of other sensitive information. This includes financial records, details about the valuation of Lamar's music catalog over the past five and a half years, and documents related to past allegations of criminal conduct involving the Compton rapper. Drake’s legal team argues that these financial records could serve as critical evidence, demonstrating how UMG’s revenue and profits directly benefited from the virality of "Not Like Us."
The lawsuit also takes aim at UMG's chief executive, Sir Lucian Grainge, alleging that he played a direct role in fostering the rivalry between the two artists, both of whom are signed to UMG but through different labels (Drake with Republic Records, Lamar with Interscope). Drake wants to see all communications related to the alleged crimes and the marketing strategy for the diss track, hoping to uncover a paper trail that proves the label actively encouraged the feud for commercial gain. He also seeks records on UMG's past practices of censoring defamatory content, claiming the label deliberately chose not to intervene in this instance.
