Drake Is Suing Spotify & Universal Music Group (His Own Record Label) For Allegedly Artificially Inflating The Popularity Of Kendrick Lamar's Diss Track, 'Not Like Us'

Billboard - Drake has initiated legal action against Universal Music Group and Spotify over allegations that the two companies conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.”

In a filing Monday (Nov. 25) in Manhattan court, Drake’s Frozen Moments LLC accused UMG of launching an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song — a track that savagely attacked Drake amid an ongoing feud between the two stars.

“UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices,” attorneys for Drake’s company write. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”

Drake’s attorneys accuse UMG of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal “RICO” statute often used in criminal cases against organized crime. They also allege deceptive business practices and false advertising under New York state law.

The court filings are a remarkable twist in the high-profile beef between the two stars, which saw Drake and Kendrick exchange stinging diss tracks over a period of months earlier this year. That such a dispute would spill into business litigation seemed almost unthinkable in the world of hip-hop.

In technical terms, Monday’s filing is not yet a full lawsuit, but a so-called “pre-action” petition — a procedure under New York law that aims to secure information before filing a lawsuit. Spotify declined to comment. UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.

I certainly don't understand all the ins-and-outs of the music industry, or the legal system. Especially when it comes to RICO laws. Which Drake's lawyers say apply to what Universal Music Group & Spotify allegedly did with Kendrick Lamar's diss track, 'Not Like Us'. But when I first read that article, it sounded to me as if Drake was suing Spotify, along with his own record label, for simply marketing Kendrick Lamar's song too well. 

However, the practice of "payola" is still illegal in America. Meaning you can't pay commercial radio stations to play your song without disclosing the payment. You can't pay Spotify to specifically suggest an artist or a song more than anyone else without disclosing it. As I understand it, there are tons of different third party loopholes to get around that. I'm sure it's happening every single day in one way or another. Sometimes illegally, sometimes legally by manipulating the rules. But Drake appears to be claiming UMG & Spotify did so in a non-legal manner.

I still don't think using Twitter bots is necessarily criminal in its own right. According to Twitter's policy, you're not allowed to use "abusive bots". So considering the nature of the song, I guess any bots used to promote "Not Like Us" would be considered abusive. The song was directly calling Drake a pedophile after all. But that's just a Twitter policy. I wish all Twitter bots were illegal on a federal level. They've ruined what was once a great app. After every post @BarstoolSports makes, before you get to any real person's reaction in the replies, you have to sift through 50 bots posing as Indian dudes & OnlyFans models exclaiming, "Wow!", "Cool!", "I'm so fucking horny!", etc. I wish the creators of those bots were all thrown in prison. But unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. Yet. But using bots to conjure up streams, or something along those line? I'm less sure about that. Unfortunately there aren't a ton of specific details available about what's in the lawsuit at this point.

But paying a million different different rappers and NBA players to show up to Kendrick Lamar's LA concert where he played the song 5 times in a row. I know that's not illegal. I know you can pay people to make public appearances. 

That's just what marketing is nowadays. It's a little shady. It's definitely manipulative. Zach Bryan paid half the UFC to walk out to his stupid country song. That was lame as hell, but not illegal. 

I know Drake isn't just suing UMG & Spotify for capitalism. If UMG was in fact paying Spotify to manipulate numbers, and move the song up the charts, that's clearly illegal. And all the reports throw in that UMG & Spotify engaged in "other deceptive business practices" as well. So there's very possibly more to it. But Drake sure comes off like a bitch when you see that headline. I guess I can't blame the guy if he's wrongfully been labeled a pedophile as the result of this collusion. That's about as harmful of a hit as a man can take to his rep. But I feel like this whole saga was pretty much behind us. We've moved onto killing immigrant babies and deporting women. Pedophile Drake is old news. But now he's dragging it all back up. 

I don't really see what Drake has to gain from this. Even if he wins the case, and proves some sort of wrongdoing, he's not going to come out looking great. I know he doesn't need the money. This all just seems a little misguided to me. But I suppose if you've truly been done wrong by the music industry, you can't just take that lying down. You gotta stand up for yourself in one way or another. And apparently Drake's response diss tracks didn't bang hard enough, so now he's going the legal route.