Summarize and humanize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in English
Drake has filed an amended complaint in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar‘s “Not Like Us,” stating that the label used Lamar’s wins at the Grammy Awards and performance of the song during the Super Bowl Halftime Show to further promote the single and damage his reputation.
The amended complaint, filed on Wednesday and reviewed by Variety, expands the January suit from 81 to 107 pages, focusing on events that took place since the initial filing. His legal team claims that Lamar’s Super Bowl Halftime Show was shown to over 133 million people — “including millions of children,” it notes — who had “never before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it. It was the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist.”
The complaint alleges that Lamar purposely excluded the word “pedophile” during the Super Bowl performance and that “on information and belief,” he would not have been permitted to perform unless it was omitted from the lyrics. “That is because nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory to falsely brand someone a ‘certified pedophile,’” reads the complaint. Drake‘s team asserts that UMG knowingly negotiated and promoted the Super Bowl performance after the initial lawsuit was filed, thereby causing intentional harm to Drake.
Drake’s counsel also points out that “Not Like Us,” which won song and record of the year at the 2025 Grammy Awards, was played during the telecast and televised to 15 million viewers, which would not have happened without UMG’s consent. They note that audience members in attendance sang along to “Not Like Us” during the telecast, but that the Grammys’ YouTube page excluded it from a subsequently posted clip. Additionally, they state that UMG CEO Lucian Grainge high-fived and hugged Dr. Dre while “Not Like Us” played, though a post-mortem YouTube clip of the high-five doesn’t include the song.
It’s also worth noting that in the initial complaint, Drake’s attorneys accused UMG of conspiring and paying unknown parties to use bots to artificially inflate the success of the song on Spotify. Drake’s counsel based the accusations on the appearance of an unknown person who said on DJ Akademiks’ livestream that Interscope, Lamar’s label, paid him via third parties to use bots in the days following the song’s release.
The amended complaint generalizes those accusations, removing specific references to the stream and instead claiming that “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.”
In a statement to Variety, Drake’s lead attorney Michael Gottlieb, partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher said, “Drake’s amended complaint makes an already strong case stronger. UMG’s PR ‘spin’ and failed efforts to avoid discovery cannot suppress the facts and the truth. 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.”
UMG issued a lengthy response to the amended complaint, stating to Variety, “Drake, unquestionably one of the world’s most accomplished artists and with whom we’ve enjoyed at 16-year successful relationship, is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another.
In Texas last November, his counsel instituted a legal proceeding with much fanfare and bluster. On Monday, they quietly dropped the case.
In New York in January, Drake’s counsel filed a defamation lawsuit. 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.
Two weeks ago, his representatives celebrated a ‘win’: the granting of a routine discovery motion. That ‘win’ will become a loss if this frivolous and reckless lawsuit is not dropped in its entirety because Drake will personally be subject to discovery as well. As the old saying goes, ‘be careful what you wish for.’
Both the Texas and New York proceedings are an affront to all artists and creative expression. Should his legal representatives senselessly keep the New York lawsuit alive, we will demonstrate that all remaining claims are without merit. It is shameful that these foolish and frivolous legal theatrics continue. They are reputationally and financially costly to Drake and have no chance of success.”
Drake initially filed his lawsuit against UMG for defamation and harassment in January, accusing the company of spreading the “false and malicious narrative” that he is a pedophile via “Not Like Us.” Among the claims made in the initial suit, Drake claimed that UMG knew Lamar’s lyrics and images in the song’s music video were false and dangerous and that it “chose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
Additionally, the suit claimed that the cover image of “Not Like Us” — a photo of Drake’s home dotted with markers that traditionally note the presence of registered sex offenders — led to a shooting incident at his house days after the song’s release, as well as two trespassers on the property.
In March, UMG filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that he was only taking legal action because he “lost a rap battle.” “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds,” read the filing. A hearing for the suit dismissal is currently scheduled for June 30.
Earlier this month, Drake made some progress after the judge denied Universal’s request to stay the discovery process, clearing a path for Drake to request access to documents including Lamar’s contracts with the label and compensation and incentives like salaries and bonuses for Interscope CEO John Janick and other executives. As part of the legal process, UMG will also be making its own discovery requests.
