Drake has filed a revised complaint against the Universal Music Group on the “Not Like As” by Kendrick Lamar in his defamation case, stating that the label used Lamor’s victory at the Grammy Awards and to further promote the song and damage his reputation.
The revised complaint, filed on Wednesday and reviewed DiversityFocusing on the events that occur after the initial filing, the January expands the suit from 81 to 107 pages. His legal team claims that Lamar’s Super Bowl Halftime Show was shown to over 133 million people – “including millions of children, who notes” who had never heard a song or any song “before, which was before. It was the first, and hopefully, the final, super bowl hastime show would be an out -of -the -artist’s character to kill another artist.
The complaint alleged that Lamor deliberately excluded the word “Podophile” during the Super Bowl demonstration and “information and belief,” they were not allowed to perform until it was released from the song. “This is because almost everyone understands that it is defamation for someone to brand wrongly for ‘certified pedophile’,” reads the complaint. Drake’s team says that after the initial lawsuit was filed, UMG deliberately interacted and promoted a super bow performance, causing deliberate damage to Drake.
Drake’s lawyers also suggest that “Not likes as”, who won the Song and Record of the Year at the 2025 Grammy Awards, was played during the telecast and television was done to 15 million audiences, which would not have happened without UMG’s consent. They note that in appearance the audience members sang with “not like us” during the telecast, but that the YouTube page of Grameies excluded it from the clip posted later. Additionally, he explains that UMG CEO Lucian Graz did Dr. The draw was played at a high-level and hug, while “not likes as” was played, although the high-five postmortem YouTube clip does not include the song.
It is also worth noting that in the initial complaint, Drake’s lawyers accused the UMG of plotting and paying unknown parties that they use the bot to artificially increase the success of the song on Spotifs. Drake’s lawyer based allegations on the appearance of an unknown person, which said on the Livestream of DJ Academic that the InterSScope, Lamor’s label paid him through the third party to use the bot in the days after the release of the song.
The revised complaint normalizes the allegations that removes specific references for the stream and instead it claims that “UMG knew that third party was using a bot to stream recording and despite the power to prevent such behavior, closed an eye.”
In a statement DiversityDrake chief Attorney Michael Gotlib, Wilki Farr and Galagher’s partner said, “Drake’s revised complaint already makes a strong case strong. UMG’s PR ‘spin’ and failed attempt to avoid search can not suppress facts and truth. Now to move forward, Drakes fined it.
UMG issued a long response to the revised complaint, stating that Diversity“Drake, unquestionably one of the world’s most skilled artists and with whom we have enjoyed in a 16 -year successful relationship, are being misled by their legal representatives to take absurd legal steps one after the other.
Last November in Texas, his lawyer initiated a legal proceedings with a lot of pomp and bang. On Monday, he quietly dropped the case.
In January in New York, Drake’s lawyer filed a defamation suit. Fearing being approved by the court to claim false allegations, tonight he amended the complaint to withdraw them only to add more baseless allegations.
Two weeks ago, his representatives celebrated a ‘victory’: a regular search speed grant. This ‘victory’ will become a disadvantage if this trivial and careless suit is not dropped in its entirety because the Drake would be subject to the discovery personally. As the old saying is, ‘Be careful what you want.’
Both Texas and New York proceedings are one impressed for all artists and creative expressions. Should their legal representatives keep the New York’s trial alive sensitively, we will show that all the remaining claims are without merit. It is shameful that these foolish and trivial legal theater continues. They are distinguished and economically expensive for Drake and there is no chance of success. ,
Drake initially filed a suit against UMG for defamation and harassment in January, alleging “false and malicious tale” spreading the company of spreading that it is a pedophile through “not likes”. In the claims made in the initial suit, Drake claimed that UMG knew that the images in Lamor’s song and song music video were false and dangerous and “chose corporate greed on the safety and welfare of its artists.”
Additionally, the suit claimed that the cover image of “not like as” – a photo of Drake’s house was dotted with markers, who traditionally notes the presence of sexual criminals registered – after the release of the song, after the release of the song, the incident of a shooting in his house days as well as two top holders on the property.
In March, UMG filed a resolution to dismiss the case, stating that he was only taking legal action because he “lost a rap battle.” Read in filing, hearing for suit dismissal is currently scheduled for June 30.
Earlier this month, Drake made some progress, when the judge refused to request universal requests to persist the discovery process, cleared a way to request access to documents including Lamor contracts with the label for Drake and the CEO John Genic and Bonas for Intercope and other officials, like pay and bonuses. As part of the legal process, UMG is also making its own search requests.
