Drake’s Legal Filings Claim the Music Game Is Rigged. Sound Familiar?

Even by the standards of a litigious business, Drake’s recent legal actions against Universal Music Group and other companies look like odd filings.

On Nov. 25, Drake filed an action accusing UMG and Spotify of acting to “artificially inflate” the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”; the next day, he made a similar filing against UMG and iHeartRadio, alleging that UMG’s release of the song could also constitute defamation. The basic idea seems to be that “Not Like Us,” Lamar’s diss track against Drake, became so successful because it was rigged.

“UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices,” Drake’s lawyers wrote in the first filing. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.” The filings accuse UMG and its partners of acting in ways that are fraudulent, including using “bots” and payola, but little proof is provided — a “whistleblower,” an “inside source known to petitioner” and an assertion that Drake “learned of at least one UMG employee making payments to an independent radio promoter” who had agreed to pay stations. (The company has said in a statement to Billboard that “the suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue.”)

These filings aren’t lawsuits, but rather legal attempts to get information that might provide the basis for them. And since Lamar’s success doesn’t really come at the expense of Drake’s — at least any more than any artist becomes popular at the expense of any other — it’s hard not to wonder if Drake is just upset that, with “Not Like Us,” Lamar seems to have won the long-running feud between them. That’s a long story — well-summarized here — but Drake and Lamar basically traded diss tracks for hip-hop fans until Lamar’s scathing “Not Like Us” topped the Billboard Hot 100. Drake is essentially claiming that UMG — for which both rappers record under different labels — cheated on Lamar’s behalf. It was rigged.

Quick: What other famous person does this remind you of? Hints: When he wins, he revels in his success; when he loses, he blames it on unfairness and litigates. Yes, I’m going there: Drake has become Trumpian.

Before Team Drizzy throws bottles of Virginia Black Whiskey by Drake, Drake is a skilled rapper, a compelling performer, and a fantastic Drake — it’s hard to compare him to other artists, both because he doesn’t fit neatly into a genre and because his greatest talent is being Drake. (Drake the artist seems to be an exaggerated version of Drake the person, with the soap operatic conflict amped up and the more mundane parts edited out.)

Both Drake and Trump thrive on success and fandom — their fans root for them because they win and they win because their fans root for them. (Trump the politician seems to be an exaggerated version of Trump the person, with the cultural conflict amped up and the boring parts edited out.) Neither gets a ton of respect from critics, but they are both popular beyond belief, and they love to win and then show off that they did. Drake’s feud with Lamar became so compelling because each was a champion in his own way — Drake the unmatched entertainer, Lamar the iconic old-school lyricist. By scoring a No. 1 single with a diss track, an unusual achievement, Lamar essentially beat Drake at his own game.

Is this why Drake is filing legal actions? Most people file litigation for financial restitution, to get an injunction to stop something, or to win negotiating leverage. In this case, the first would be hard to calculate, the second involves practices that would be hard to prove and the third seems unlikely — why would Drake want out of the UMG deal he signed in 2021, which includes publishing and merchandise rights and was described as “Lebron sized.” The only thing we know about Drake’s motive is that his second filing says he “brings this action for a discrete and specific purpose: to understand whether, and how, UMG funneled payments to iHeartRadio and its radio stations as part of a pay-to-play scheme.” Perhaps, like Trump, he simply can’t imagine the possibility that he would lose a fair fight.

Does Drake have a case? If UMG really had the power to make any song a hit, wouldn’t it do so more frequently? If anyone thinks Drake hasn’t received enough marketing or promotion — and I have yet to meet such a person — it’s worth considering that some Spotify subscribers found the service’s promotion of Scorpion so extensive that they asked for a refund. This, too, has political echoes: If U.S. elections are as unfair as Trump claims, how can he trust the one in November?

Like Trump, Drake loves the one-upmanship drama of competition — but only, apparently, when he wins. Trump ran several campaigns based partly on the politics of insult comedy — his dog-whistle racism was obviously far worse — but he doesn’t like to be on the receiving end of it. (The kind of thin skin that would be a personal fault in most is terrifying in the U.S. president.)

If rappers could pursue defamation claims for diss tracks, much less against the labels that release them, hip-hop never would have made it out of the Bronx. Lamar called Drake a certified pedophile, which is an ugly accusation, and a pun on Drake’s Certified Lover Boy, but not an actual thing; the reason Drake looks bad isn’t because people believe it but because “Not Like Us” is catchier and wittier than his own diss tracks. Drake certainly has the right to ask about music promotion practices — even in a legal filing. If no evidence of this emerges, though, he will need to seek satisfaction the old-fashioned way — by releasing a more compelling single.