Drake Files Defamation Suit Against Universal Music Group Over Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl Performance
April 23, 2025, 12:42 pm CDT
Rapper and singer Drake attends an NBA game on March 16, 2024, in Houston. (Photo by David J. Phillip/The Associated Press)
In a recent legal development, rapper Drake has amended his lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging that the music company has engaged in a strategy of defamation through the recent Super Bowl performance of fellow artist Kendrick Lamar. Filed on April 16, the complaint centers around Lamar’s 2024 song “Not Like Us,” which is claimed to have implied damaging accusations against Drake.
The lawsuit contends that the song falsely portrays Drake as a pedophile, even though the specific term was omitted during the Super Bowl performance. Drake argues that this omission did not prevent the defamatory sentiment from being conveyed to a vast audience, which exceeded 133 million viewers during the event.
Legal Implications and Allegations
According to the amended suit, the alleged slurs are not only harmful but call for violent retaliation, leading to an unwarranted maligning of Drake’s character. The complaint terms the halftime show as “the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist.”
Response from Universal Music Group
UMG has responded firmly to the allegations, emphasizing its long-standing relationship with Drake, which spans over 16 years. In a statement published through various media outlets, the company described the lawsuit as “foolish and frivolous legal theatrics” that are misleading Drake and ultimately costly to his reputation and finances. They asserted their commitment to proving that the claims lack merit.
Broader Impact of the Lawsuit
The ongoing legal battle has drawn attention from major media outlets including Reuters, the New York Times, and CNN, highlighting the contentious intersection of art, celebrity, and legal ramifications in contemporary music culture. As this case unfolds, it raises questions about the responsibilities of artists in their portrayals of peers and the potential for legal recourse in the music industry.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for the artists involved but also for the broader music industry as it grapples with issues of defamation and creative expression.
This reimagined article maintains the core information while offering a fresh structure and presentation to engage readers effectively.
