When Drake first sued Universal Music Group for defamation over “Not Like Us,” some wondered if the move would keep Kendrick Lamar from performing the song at the Super Bowl. But Lamar still got the whole stadium yelling “A-minor” and even referenced the lawsuit during his set. Now, predictably, Drake is claiming the performance was defamatory. In an amended lawsuit, Drake’s lawyers said Lamar’s performance “was the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist.” The complaint noted that Lamar did not rap the line “certified pedophile” during the prime-time performance, “because nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory to falsely brand someone a ‘certified pedophile.’” In response, UMG — which is also Drake’s own label group — said the rapper’s new claims are still “without merit,” adding that he “is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another.”
Drake’s amended lawsuit specifically takes issue with UMG going forward with having Lamar perform “Not Like Us” at the Super Bowl after Drake first sued the label the month before. The suit notes that Lamar’s performance, as the most-viewed halftime show ever,” exposed the allegedly defamatory claims to “millions more who had never before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it” in his beef with Drake. The lawsuit additionally cites viral moments like Lamar staring into the camera and saying “Hey, Drake, I hear you like ’em young” as further harm to Drake.
Drake’s lead attorney, Michael Gottlieb, said in a statement the amended complaint “makes an already strong case stronger.” However, the suit was also amended to soften Drake’s initial claims that UMG “conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’” to stream the song. The suit now accuses UMG of “directly or indirectly” being involved in bot streaming while removing allegations from an unknown “whistleblower.” “At minimum, UMG was aware that third parties were using bots to stream the recording and turned a blind eye, despite having the power to stop such behavior,” Drake’s lawyers now claim. UMG called out the changes in its new statement: “Fearful of being sanctioned by the court for asserting false allegations, tonight they amended the complaint to withdraw them only to add more baseless allegations,” the label group said.
The amended filing comes after a judge ruled earlier in April to allow the evidence discovery process to begin in the case, denying a motion to delay from UMG. “With discovery now moving forward, Drake will expose the evidence of UMG’s misconduct, and UMG will be held accountable for the consequences of its ill-conceived decisions,” Gottlieb added in the new statement. But in its statement, UMG warned that Drake will now also be subject to discovery. “As the old saying goes, ‘Be careful what you wish for,’” the label said. UMG went on to call on Drake to drop the case. “It is shameful that these foolish and frivolous legal theatrics continue,” UMG said. “They are reputationally and financially costly to Drake and have no chance of success.”
