Drake Withdraws Legal Action Against UMG and Spotify Over Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us"
- Jermy Johnson
- Jan 15
- 2 min read
In a surprising turn of events, Drake has officially withdrawn his legal action against Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify. The Canadian rapper had previously accused the music giants of scheming to illegally inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar's chart-topping diss track, "Not Like Us."
Last November, Drake, through his company Frozen Moments, filed a pre-action petition alleging that UMG, the parent company of both his and Kendrick's record labels, used streaming bots and payola to artificially boost the success of "Not Like Us." However, this was not an actual lawsuit, but rather a move to determine if it was worth filing an official lawsuit.

UMG denied any wrongdoing, stating that the "suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue." Spotify also maintained its innocence, claiming that they never had an illicit "arrangement" with UMG to give "Not Like Us" an unfair advantage.
In a surprising twist, on January 14, 2025, Drake and his representatives met with UMG and Spotify and subsequently filed legal paperwork in New York, informing the court that they were withdrawing the petition. The filing notes that Spotify, which had previously filed an opposition to the petition, expressed "no objection to the withdrawal and discontinuance," while UMG "reserved its position."
The action was withdrawn "without costs to any party," and no reason was cited for Drake's decision to withdraw the legal action. Neither Drake nor Kendrick Lamar have publicly commented on the withdrawal.
The legal dispute has been closely watched, with 50 Cent previously speculating on the reasons behind Drake's legal war against UMG. However, the withdrawal of the petition leaves many unanswered questions, and the future of any potential legal action remains uncertain.
As the music industry continues to grapple with issues surrounding streaming and chart manipulation, this case serves as a reminder of the complex dynamics and challenges faced by artists and record labels alike.
Comments