Could Drake’s Legal Gambit Against UMG Shape His Next Business Moves?
Some attorneys believe the rapper is using the pair of bombshell legal actions as a negotiating tool for a potential future contract.
staff
Drake, by common consensus, has been a smart and savvy businessman over the course of his music career. So some in the music business have been puzzled following the megastar rapper’s widely ridiculed legal filing last week against his own label, Universal Music Group (UMG), as well as Spotify, for an illegal “scheme” to boost the popularity of Kendrick Lamar‘s May 2024 diss track “Not Like Us.” They wonder if the move was a strategy for a potential future contract negotiation.
“Drake could be creating his own leverage by filing the suit against UMG,” says Josh Binder, an attorney who represents pop and hip-hop stars including Gunna, Marshmello, Lisa of BLACKPINK and Ivan Cornejo. “Most lawsuits are settled pre-litigation. My gut says this isn’t going to a jury. Drake could be using the suit to alter his existing deal.”
Although Binder has no inside information on Drake’s filing, which alleges UMG “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves” in its effort to amplify Lamar’s Drake diss track, he says the case could drag out and cause bad publicity for both Drake and UMG: “Settling it would, at a certain point, be worthwhile to both parties.”
In the Nov. 25 filing, Drake alleged that UMG used bots and other means to boost the prominence of “Not Like Us” on streaming services; the rapper’s attorneys accused the label of giving Spotify a deal on licensing rates in exchange for recommending the song to users who’d played non-Lamar tracks. They also alleged a civil violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, frequently employed against organized crime, as well as deceptive business practices and false advertising — including allegedly paying Apple to have Siri steer users to the Lamar track. The legal action states that the label “conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of ‘Not Like Us’ and deceive consumers into believing the song was more popular than it was in reality.”
In a second filing the following day, which alleged payola to iHeartMedia to boost the song at radio, he went even further, saying UMG knew Lamar was defaming Drake by “falsely” accusing him of being a “certified pedophile,” yet released the track anyway. This filing reads in part: “UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues.”
Of the legal filings, Universal Music released a statement saying that the “suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” and several music-business attorneys echoed that sentiment to Billboard. “I can’t believe this is anything more than a publicity stunt,” says Howard King, who has represented Metallica, Dr. Dre and Pharrell in high-profile cases. “I don’t see how Drake has standing to challenge the record industry for doing what he knows they also do for him — using all available resources to promote an artist’s profile and music.”
But others in the business agreed Drake could be using the widespread publicity he generated from last week’s legal actions as a negotiating point for a future record deal negotiation with UMG. (Drake initially signed with Young Money, an imprint distributed by Universal-owned Republic Records, then later became a Republic artist.) One source tells Billboard that Drake’s latest deal, signed in 2021 and described as “LeBron-sized” by Variety at the time, isn’t far from expiring, and the most logical explanation for Drake damaging his reputation so publicly with the legal filings was to communicate his unhappiness to UMG and aim for a lucrative new deal, or even equity in UMG.
“It’s possible that it was done to have some leverage against his label,” says Gandhar Savur, a New York music attorney, adding that he has no knowledge of Drake or UMG’s affairs. “However, my initial impression was that he’s just trying to publicly discredit the track.”
Drake is one of the streaming era’s most successful stars, having passed the 50 billion mark in 2018. Lamar’s latest album, GNX, scored 364 million Spotify streams in its first week, in late November, but Drake holds the record for first-week hip-hop albums, with 589 million for 2018’s Scorpion and 497 million for 2021’s Certified Lover Boy.
If contract negotiations with UMG were to break down, sources say, an artist of Drake’s stature could follow the lead of Kanye West, who did not renew his contract with Def Jam/Universal after it expired and has since released albums on his own label via DIY distribution services, scoring a two-week No. 1 in February with Vultures 1 and a No. 2 debut in August with Vultures 2. “He could move forward without a deal,” King says of Drake. “He can certainly distribute the music without a label, especially domestically, and would need to have a management team capable of promotion and marketing. Of course, he would give up the big advance and have to fund production costs himself.”
Drake, however, as a viable global superstar, is in a different situation from Ye, whose prior antisemitic comments made getting into business with him a publicity headache for most labels. Binder doesn’t see the dominant rapper following West’s DIY path. “I would imagine [Drake] would want the infrastructure of a label,” he says.
