Drake’s legal fight with UMG and Spotify targets alleged manipulation of streams, playlists, and reputations, aiming to expose what he calls an exploitative system. A dive into the battle reveals it’s about more than diss tracks
It's more than just a rap beef
Drake’s legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify isn’t about rap beef or who dropped the better diss track. While Kendrick Lamar’s 'Not Like Us' might be the spark, the case isn’t about lyrics or bragging rights. Instead, it cuts to the heart of an industry accused of manipulating streams, playlists, and reputations for profit. Through his company, Frozen Moments, LLC, which holds the rights to his catalogue, Drake has filed two petitions aimed at uncovering what he claims is an unfair, exploitative system.
The First Petition: Bots, Payola, and Manipulated Algorithms
Drake’s first petition focuses on what he sees as systemic industry manipulation. It alleges that UMG and Spotify worked together to artificially boost Not Like Us. Central to the claims are accusations of tactics that paint a troubling picture:
Bot Streams: The petition claims millions of fake streams on Spotify and YouTube created the false impression that the song was a runaway hit.
Modern Payola: UMG is accused of paying for premium playlist placements, radio spins, and algorithmic prioritization—even leveraging virtual assistants like Siri.
Spotify’s Complicity: Drake alleges Spotify reduced UMG’s licensing fees by 30% in exchange for featuring Not Like Us prominently in search results and playlists.
Cover-Ups: The petition further claims UMG fired employees to hide its involvement in these manipulative practices.
Drake’s legal team argues that the track wasn’t just promoted to succeed but strategically positioned to undermine his career and leave independent artists struggling to compete.
The Second Petition: Defamation and Personal Attacks
While the first petition focuses on alleged industry manipulation, the second takes a personal turn. Filed in Texas, it accuses UMG of defamation for promoting Not Like Us with lyrics that accuse Drake of predatory behaviour and shielding sex offenders. These allegations, which Drake denies, are seen as a direct attack on his character.
According to the petition, UMG actively pushed the song using the same tools from the first case: bot-driven streams, playlist favouritism, and algorithmic manipulation. It also alleges UMG paid platforms like iHeartRadio to amplify the track’s reach. Drake’s legal team alleges that this is a calculated effort to harm his reputation for corporate profit.
UMG quickly denied the accusations, labelling them as “baseless”. However, if the claims are validated, the case could set new standards for accountability in music promotion and defamation. For Drake, this is more than legal posturing. It’s a fight to protect his name and challenge exploitative industry norms.
Why It Matters
For Drake: This isn’t just about career advancement. It’s personal. By confronting UMG, Drake is challenging a culture of secrecy and manipulation in the music industry. The irony is unavoidable; Drake has been accused of benefiting from similar practices in the past athe top streaming Hip-Hop artist of all time. Yet, his insight as someone who knows the system from the inside strengthens his case.
A victory could give Drake greater independence from traditional labels. He has already experimented with releasing music directly to fans. Winning these cases could solidify his legacy—not just as a global icon but as a disruptor of an entrenched system.
For the Music Industry
Drake’s actions highlight several long-standing issues:
Modern Payola: Playlist manipulation and artificial streams are the new payola, creating unfair advantages for label-backed artists. Drake’s petitions could force the industry to reevaluate these practices.
Independent Artists’ Struggle: For smaller artists, breaking through algorithmic barriers is already difficult. Exposing the full extent of these biases could make the playing field fairer for indie creators.
Defamation Standards: If Drake’s defamation claim succeeds, it could push labels to think more carefully about the ethics of releasing potentially harmful content.
J. Cole, in his track Port Antonio, echoes these frustrations. His lyrics call out “algorithm-bot [redacted]” that distort the music landscape, capturing what many artists feel: that authenticity is overshadowed by manipulation.
For Big Tech
The petitions also put platforms like Spotify under scrutiny. If Drake’s allegations hold weight, it suggests platforms may prioritize profits over fairness, potentially colluding with labels to shape what fans consume.
This case could have ripple effects beyond music. It raises questions about algorithmic control in other industries, from online shopping to social media. Regulatory bodies might take a closer look at how tech giants wield influence over content and consumption.
What’s at Stake?
Drake’s petitions raise the stakes for all parties involved:
Transparency: These cases could force labels and streaming platforms to disclose how playlists, promotions, and algorithms are curated.
Empowered Artists: A win for Drake might inspire others to challenge exploitative practices, paving the way for more independent releases.
Legal Reforms: Success could lead to stricter regulations on payola, streaming manipulation, and defamation.
UMG’s Reputation: If UMG is found liable, other artists might step forward with similar grievances, putting significant pressure on the label.
Rage Against the Machine
Drake’s fight isn’t just about personal grievances. It’s a critique of a system many believe is broken. UMG’s CEO, Lucian Grainge, once admitted, “It’s harder than ever for artists to break through the noise: sixty thousand songs are added to Spotify every day.” If the industry’s “noise” is driven by bots, pay-to-play schemes, and biased algorithms, then independent artists face impossible odds.
Whether or not Drake wins or not, his petitions shine a light on major issues within the music world. The claims of fake streams, playlist manipulation, and defamatory content highlight struggles faced by everyone—from global stars to up-and-coming artists.
The music industry stands at a crossroads. If these allegations hold up, they could lead to sweeping changes in transparency, fairness, and accountability. For fans, artists, and industry insiders, this battle is about more than diss tracks. It’s about the future of music itself.
The writer is Nathanael Amore, Attorney-at-Law (Entertainment and IP),
CEO of DGM Entertainment Limited.
Comments