How Can Drake Release an Album While He’s Suing His Record Label?

On Valentine’s Day, Drake teamed up with OVO signee and frequent collaborator PARTYNEXTDOOR to release the collaborative album Some Sexy Songs 4 U, a 21-track project that marks his first release since the three-track project 100 Gigs last August. 

More significantly, it’s his first release since he filed a lawsuit against his record label, Universal Music Group (UMG), on Jan. 15 for defamation over the release of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” the searing, chart-topping diss track aimed at the Canadian rapper that was released by UMG’s Interscope Records. In the lawsuit, lawyers for Drake alleged that “UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” by pushing a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a “certified pedophile,” as Lamar rapped on the track. (UMG, in response, said in part, “Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist—let alone Drake—is illogical.”)

That raises the question: How is Drake able to release an album while he’s actively suing the record label to which he’s signed?

First, the logistics: The new album was released jointly through OVO Sound, to which PARTYNEXTDOOR is signed, which is distributed by Santa Anna, a company under Sony Music Group’s Alamo Records umbrella; and OVO, which is Drake’s vehicle through UMG’s Republic Records. They are co-billed that way and in that order on digital service providers like Spotify and Apple Music. These types of joint releases are relatively common; think Future and Metro Boomin’s back-to-back We Don’t Trust You albums last year, released jointly via Future’s label Epic Records (also a Sony label) and Metro’s label Republic Records. (Coincidentally, We Don’t Trust You contained the song “Like That” featuring Lamar, the track that kicked off the Drake-Kendrick beef in earnest.) Another, more current, example is the Lady Gaga–Bruno Mars collaboration “Die With A Smile,” currently sitting at No. 1 on the Hot 100 for its fifth week, which is co-billed to Gaga’s Interscope and Mars’ Atlantic Records.

That means UMG would have had to legally clear Drake’s appearance on the album, an outcome that a handful of lawyers consulted by Billboard say would not necessarily be affected by any ongoing litigation. “Suing UMG shouldn’t preclude him from working with them legally,” one lawyer says. “As for their desire to be in a contractual relationship with him while he is litigating against them, that’s a different story.” Adds another, who agreed that it would not affect his ability to release an album: “Whether or not UMG decides to properly fund and support a release that Drake wants to do while Drake is suing UMG is another question.”

A UMG spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In its response to the initial lawsuit last month, the company wrote, “We have invested massively in [Drake’s] music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success. … Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists. He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”

An artist suing their record label is not an unheard-of occurrence; it has happened several times through the years, often over royalty payments or other contractual disputes. Suing their own record label for defamation over a diss track, however, is unprecedented; given the mutually beneficial financials involved in an artist and an album’s commercial success, it would stand to reason that UMG would not aim to materially harm one of their superstar artists. But that’s a determination for the courts to make.

Additional reporting by Elias Leight.