Drake Sues Universal--What's His Angle?

Hey, this is Wendy Day from Rap Coalition, and this is Monday, November 25th. It has been an incredibly interesting day in the music industry. Your boy Drake filed suit against Universal Music Group today for "Not Like Us." His complaint was that Universal employed payola tactics for radio, streaming, and boosting blog coverage on "Not Like Us," which gave Kendrick an unfair advantage over the song. At first, I thought he was just being petty because it seemed a bit ridiculous, right?

You got slaughtered in a battle, and you're mad because you were defeated by a lyricist. So you filed a lawsuit, and I pulled a copy of the suit.

And first of all, it's not a lawsuit. It's a petition, which Billboard did state it was. They mentioned that he sued, but he didn't sue; it's a petition. It's a petition because he wants disclosure from Universal, which is his distribution company, or was until he filed this along with Spotify.

And what he's saying is that he quotes a variety of events that have occurred in the music industry—not just in 2024, but also going back to 2006 and 2020, when there were Ray O'Neill and radio payola scandals. He discussed Universal's alleged complicity in payola. They paid a fine, but I don't think they ever took responsibility for it. It seems like it just turned into a fine instead of a civil or criminal lawsuit. What strikes me is that Drake's career was built on the same promotional tactics that are still allegedly in place today.

In this petition, he stated that Spotify and Universal have had a relationship and that Universal has ownership in Spotify. We all know he was discussing how beneficial this is financially to Universal Music Group. However, what interests me is the plethora of press releases and articles he cites throughout his petition. If I were to write a thesis on the music business, I could use this as a reference on how promotion works in music—or, more accurately, how it allegedly works in music.

I could use this. So let me state as I'm going through this that I am not a Drake fan. Those of you who know me really well know this, but I'm not really a Kendrick fan either. I'm a fan of the culture. I'm a fan of what Kendrick brings to the culture.

I like his music. I like this new album. But he's not an artist that I listen to a lot. I've listened to him more than I've listened to Drake. I've heard Drake's music more than I've heard Kendrick's music.

Because Drake's music is out and about. As I'm moving around in the world, I hear Drake's music playing in stores, in clubs, and in cars driving past. He is a commercial recording artist and absolutely, hands down, one of the biggest—if not the biggest. I think The Weekend was the biggest this year. I'm just off the phone with my radio guys because I want to know what they think of this. They saw the press but didn't read the actual petition.

I sent it to them because they should really see this. Okay, so he's saying that Universal did not allow this song to break organically. By this song, I'm talking about "Not Like Us," right? By the way, great, great, great song.

I'll even go as far as to say it is Kendrick's first commercially viable pop hit single, right? It's putting him on the radio map. And he's been on the radio. Don't get me wrong, but I don't think he's ever made it past the top 10. I could be wrong.

Like I said, I'm not really a Kendrick fan. I don't really follow him. I don't really follow Drake, but I'm following this because this is deep. Okay. And just so you know, he talks about Interscope working on this record.

Since that record came out, I believe that Universal restructured, and Kendrick Lamar's album, which just dropped this past Friday—three days ago—was put out by Capitol, right? However, it appears that, if the information in this petition is accurate, it seems to be a licensing deal. Okay? So here's where we see him talking about the licensing of "Not Like Us." Okay.

So here's where you're talking. Here's where we see him discussing the licensing terms that differ from ours. He mentions that Spotify charged licensing rates that are 30% lower than their usual rates in exchange for promoting this record in playlists, etc. I believe he is referring to the ads that Spotify offers to anyone, where artists get paid a little bit less. However, he is alleging more than that.

He's alleging that Universal went and made a side deal with Spotify directly for this record. He is also saying that by not having us at the top of all the charts, the top of all the radio play, and the top of blogs, it didn't leave room for other artists to reach those heights. Therefore, Universal's actions, which he refers to as underhanded tactics—my words, not his—prevented him from benefiting his company. He claims that they cost him money through their payola tactics and that there were whistleblowers involved. He also claims that people at Interscope were fired because they were Drake fans.

Friendly, as opposed to Kendrick friendly? I find that really hard to believe, and proving it will be very difficult. I would imagine—I'm not a lawyer—maybe I'm missing something, but it’s going to be very hard to prove that someone got fired because they preferred Drake over any other artist on the label.

Right. But he's going through here talking about using similar tactics with other streaming services. He is alleging, and this is big. I don't even know how you would do this, but he's alleging — and I'm not saying he's wrong; I'm just saying — he is alleging in this lawsuit that Universal went in and approved payments to Apple to have its Siri assistant purposely misdirect anyone wanting to hear "Certified Lover Boy" to the song "Not Like Us." He's saying that they were charged for that.

He's also saying that somebody went in and paid someone $5,000 for extra bot streams on "Not Like Us." He goes into a bit of the history of payola. This is radio payola, specifically from the 2006 case where Universal agreed to pay $12 million in a settlement with the attorney general for pay-for-play.

That was Eliot Spitzer. I don't know if you guys remember that. I don’t know if you go back this far. It was 18 years ago. And then here’s another case in February of 2020, right at the beginning of COVID, where payola allegedly happened again.

He's also discussing Universal's "Paying NFR" podcast, which has 300,000 subscribers on YouTube. They are promoting "Not Like Us" and how it has gained attention on their Twitter. Here’s an example of the posts they made, stating that "Not Like Us" has become the fastest rap song to reach 300 million streams. I'm just going through this and showing you the various complaints. I suggest that you all pull this up and read it for yourselves because it's fascinating.

And it's going to be very interesting in a WWE-like way to watch how this plays out because he is accusing the largest record company in the world of payola on many different platforms and in many different ways at a time when his rival, for lack of a better word, Kendrick Lamar, just dropped an album three days ago and needs to market and promote his music. So if they're being accused of radio payola, would they take a chance on sending a Kendrick song to radio while all the eyes of those who could slap them on the wrist might be watching? I'm watching. I have no intention of slapping them on the wrist.

I like this. I enjoy music industry promotion. At our company, we use similar tactics to the major labels to promote our artists, and we have access to everything they have. The difference is, we don't buy fake streams or bot streams because it disrupts the algorithm.

I guess it doesn't matter when you're getting 76 million streams in a seven-day period. But when you're a smaller artist and you're not getting that many streams, all of the bot streams can falsely flag your account. This situation tends to attract more Brazilian, Indonesian, or Turkish streamers instead of real fans in the United States who can actually attend your shows, buy tickets, and purchase your merchandise. You want to monetize your artistry; you don't want to just focus on numbers.

And it's crazy to me. Anytime somebody says to me, "I need to increase my numbers," I tell them, "No, you need to increase your fans." Let the numbers grow based on real people, not based on buying bots. He's talking about how "Not Like Us" stayed at number one on the Billboard Hot 100, how many times it played, and where the video appeared from July 4th to August 8th.

And he's alleging this because he claims that it was at number one. Nobody else could get to number one; there wasn't room for him, who was supposedly working his record legitimately, without payola or bots. Those of you who work in the music industry are probably laughing right now because some of you may be questioning whether Drake's career was built on doing this exact same thing that he, as a label owner, is now railing against. I don't know if that's the case or not, but I have my suspicions.

Okay, so here are more complaints. And again, you guys have to read this. I'm thinking to myself, well, what's in it for Universal? Because these songs are licensed.

Drake has a licensing deal. Kendrick has a licensing deal. They're not owned by Universal. The way they both have deals through Universal, but they're not ownership deals through Universal anymore, right?

So they're like licensing or distribution deals, if you will. They probably pay for services, and I'm assuming—I don't know either of the deals. I didn't handle either of their deals, and I haven't talked to anybody who has done their deals.

I haven't looked at their deals. I'm just basing this on what I know from doing deals. And those of you who know me know that I've done a lot of deals out there. Even recently, I just don't talk about them because I don't want to be known anymore as the chick that did the cash money deal.

That's not who I am. I did their deal, but I'm so much more than just a girl who does a deal at a major label. What Drake is alleging in this section, if you're reading it, is that the incentive is for John Janik to receive a bonus at the end of the year based on Interscope's finances. He claims that his bonus is 90% based on the financial success of Interscope and 10% based on the success of UMG.

And since Drake is not coming through the Interscope side or now the Capitol side of Universal, he's coming through the Republic side. Therefore, they're competing, and he can't win. That's what he's alleging, if I'm reading this correctly. Okay, here it is: streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game.

Every time a song breaks through, it means another artist does not. UMG's choice to saturate the music market with "Not Like Us" comes at the expense of other artists like Drake. Now, he is claiming that he suffered economic harm as a result of UMG's scheme. It is also mentioning a company called Frozen Motors, which is the company he is signed to.

He's not signed to OVO, and it's registered in the state of Florida. That stopped me a little bit when I was reading this. The only thing I can figure, and I would need to ask a Florida attorney, is that there are no state taxes in Florida. So perhaps that's why his company is registered in the state of Florida.

I don't know. I'm not on his team. I don't know anyone on his team.

I'm not all up in his business. I'm just saying that he has the right to sue in New York because UMG is based there. Well, they are based outside of the country, but they have offices where they do business in New York, as does Spotify. They are located in One World Trade Center or Four World Trade Center. Four World Trade Center is off Greenwich Street.

So he’s saying that he has the right to sue them because when you sue somebody, and again, this is a petition, not a lawsuit. He wants information. He’s not actually saying, "I’m suing you"; he’s saying, "I need information, and when I get that information, my plan is to sue." This is called leverage. This is when you want something from somebody, and you want to put pressure on them. But here’s that wonderful word: RICO. Are you guys seeing this?

Here’s the text reformatted with correct capitalization and spelling: So, here's that wonderful word: Rico. You guys seeing this? He’s saying that they have engaged in deceptive business practices and have used false advertising because they are buying it instead of allowing it to happen naturally. They are purchasing it; it's payola as opposed to promotion. He’s claiming it's a civil Rico case because there is wire fraud, mail fraud, bribery, and the hiring of third parties to reduce fees to Spotify, as if they are in cahoots. That’s what this means. He’s also implying that he knows exactly who to call if he has to go to court. He’s not naming them here, but he’s stating that there are two people he can bring to court if necessary. So, this is a really big situation.

To put it to a company's head: because it could, if it's true—and we don't know that it is—but if it's true, it could topple the way marketing and promotion is done in the music business in 2024 and 2025. Regardless, this is going to change some things. He goes on to say that he has tried to negotiate with them.

For damages, meaning to receive money from them. They said, "No, if you're not happy, go sue Kendrick. Don't sue us." He replied, "Well, it's not Kendrick's fault; it's your fault."

You guys are the ones who marketed and promoted, not like us. Therefore, it's on you. And here is the signature of his lawyers. These are the two lawyers: Michael Gottlieb and Merle Gabernski. I don't know either of them.

And then here’s Drake’s affidavit and signature saying, "I approve this petition." There’s nothing attached to it to prove anything he’s alleged here. However, if I were a record label marketing and promoting music—regardless of whether I was doing anything illegal—this would make me really nervous. Because it’s going to prompt people at the government, the "alphabet boys," to take a closer look and see what’s really going on in the music industry. Even if you’re operating legally—and they may or may not be—the last thing you want is someone all up in your business, double-checking every single email. So, the last thing he’s accusing them of is false advertising. He’s saying that if you know you’re buying success and artificially inflating it through your own manipulation, then claiming that someone is the number one artist or the fastest artist to get to number one ever, or whatever it was that they said Kendrick was, becomes problematic.

It hurts people because it's deceptive, and people depend on corporations to tell the truth. So, this is all really interesting, and we're going to see how this shakes out. My guess is that he is looking for a payday; he is considering suing only as a threat to negotiate himself out. I spoke to one of my friends at the radio today about this and got his whole impression of it. He and I are of the opinion that Drake would prefer to be at Warner Brothers, where OVO is, rather than at Universal.

I don't know why. Maybe there was a falling out. Perhaps they didn't promote his responses to the diss records as hard as they did Kendrick's. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

Kendrick spanked him. I'm just saying, Kendrick spanked him. So it’s looking like he’s being petty, but I don’t think this is driven by pettiness. I mean, maybe a little bit, maybe a little bit driven by pettiness, but I think he’s trying to get Universal to make a move because you don’t sue your partner.

How do you sue your partner and then expect to be treated nicely? It's like suing your parents and then going to the Thanksgiving table and saying, "Hi, everybody, happy holidays." It's not going to be a good dinner. You just sued your parents, and now you're sitting down with them at a table. They're going to feel some kind of way.

And that's what this is. This is somebody, an artist—undeniably one of the biggest artists in the world—suing his partner distribution company, claiming that they are shady and fraudulent. That's basically what he's alleging. I'm anxious to see how this plays out. This is interesting. We are the WWE.

I don't know when hip hop became like this. It's a soap opera; it's a telenovela. It's just crazy. Okay, guys, I just wanted to share with you what I know.