Judge Gives Drake a Minorrrr Win in His Kendrick Lamar-Obsessed Lawsuit Against UMG
- Fck Yaya
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
After dropping his petition against Spotify—where he accused the company of illegally inflating Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" streams—and pulling his payola allegations against iHeartMedia, Drake finally secured a minorrrrrrr legal victory in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). On Tuesday, April 2, Judge Jeanette Vargas (SDNY) denied UMG's request to stay discovery, allowing Drake's legal team to continue their fishing expedition—by requesting access to Kendrick Lamar's records and deposing UMG executives, all before the court even rules on whether the case should be dismissed.
While this ruling gives Drake a momentary advantage and some favorable narratives for his mouthpieces to run with, the real story has yet to be written. Beneath the headlines and behind the tweets lies the real question: What is Drake really after—and if he wins, what does it mean for the future of Hip-Hop?
Discovery or Digging for Dirt?
Drake is a creature of habit. He plays it safe. He’s formulaic. So when Drake's mouthpieces tried to sell this UMG lawsuit as a noble stand for artists' rights, I called bullshit. Because Drake isn't a disruptor—he's predictable. That's why Kendrick—and the rest of us—knew precisely who Drake would target before he dropped a single bar: a woman. That's his go-to. Always has been. And with that hard head, it probably always will be.
Which is why I find this lawsuit to be another predictable Drake move. Sure, suing your own label after losing a rap battle sounds wild. But if you know Drake, it's the same song with the overused beat switch, a new accent, and him telling the same story over and over again. Because Drake is, like I said, nothing more than a loop. A walking déjà vu. A creature of habit. So this lawsuit isn't about what he wants us to believe—protecting his reputation. It's about revenge. It's about Kendrick.
“It was fun until you started to put money in the streets / Then lost money ‘cause they came back with no receipts.”—Kendrick Lamar, “6:16 in LA
That line from 6:16 in LA might be the most accurate read on this whole lawsuit. Drake tried throwing money in the streets to get dirt on Kendrick—and came back empty-handed. Now, he's throwing money at the courts, hoping discovery will give him what the streets couldn't: something to rap about. Meme about. Anything to even the score.
Because let's be honest—Drake doesn't want a trial.
He doesn't want justice.
He wants access.
Who really thinks Drake—the same guy who publicly claimed he studies rap battles—wants to sit in a federal courtroom explaining how a diss track hurt his reputation? A reputation already clouded by whispers of underage girls long before "Not Like Us"? A reputation still under fire, after rumors spread that his “shorty from Astoria, who looks like she could be in Euphoria,” was allegedly in high school when they met?
Come on. Drake doesn't want a court fight. He doesn’t want to risk taking the stand, because once you’re
up there, anything can happen. And the fact that he was allegedly messaging Adam22 about Wack 100's USB? That’s not confidence—it’s fear. Panic. Someone who knows there’s something to find, even if Wack’s got nothing.
However, what truly exposes Drake’s motives comes from his own OVO artist, Baka Not Nice. In a recent interview, Baka revealed he wanted to respond to Kendrick Lamar for name-dropping him in “Not Like Us,” but Drake told him to ignore the noise, saying it’s just bots and at least people are talking about him. See, for Baka, the comments are bot-generated and "Not Like Us" is noise, but for Drake, the comments are real people hurting his reputation, and the song is all of a sudden defamatory. Is Drake lying to Baka or to the Judge?
Nah, nah, nah. This is why I don't buy that Drake wants to see the inside of a courtroom. He’s setting the stage for a round 2—in the court of public opinion. But first, he needs dirt on Kendrick Lamar.
When UMG revealed Drake's discovery requests, what was at the top of the list? All of Kendrick Lamar's
contracts. Not anything tied to defamation or harassment - the very claims this lawsuit hinges on. Not even anything that could help with the so-called botting conspiracy—which, by the way, he's supposed to omit in his amended complaint. He wants all of Kendrick's paperwork because I guess he hopes to find a contract that says "THE ELIMINATION OF DRAKE" written somewhere-LOL.
Drake knows he can't prove defamation or harassment against UMG and already failed at the botting claims—but he can be nosey. He can try to get a peek at Kendrick's contacts and then attempt to weaponize whatever he finds.
And if you remember how Tory Lanez's discovery somehow ended up in Akademiks' hands—even under a gag order—then you already know the play. Drake's looking for a plot twist. A headline. A red button. Something, anything, to shift the narrative.
It doesn't have to be significant. It can be as small as winning the right to continue discovery. As long as Drake finds something Akademiks can run with and twist into "breaking news," he's good. This lawsuit isn't about setting the record straight—it's about creating noise.
The streets and Drake's pen failed him. Now he's hoping the courts won't.
The Censorship Play: Drake's Desire to Silence Kendrick Lamar
But another play Drake is making—hidden in plain sight—is a clear attempt to censor Kendrick Lamar and ban “Not Like Us” from being played altogether.
In the lawsuit, Drake’s lawyer repeatedly refers to the track as “defamatory material.” That wording isn’t accidental. If the court were to accept that framing, “Not Like Us” could be classified as legally defamatory. And if that happens, UMG—who distributes the song—could potentially be held liable for continuing to publish it. That puts the track’s presence on DSPs (Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) in jeopardy.
Let’s be honest: Drake actually winning on this claim is unlikely. But this section isn’t about what’s probable—it’s about what he’s trying to do. A “rapper” who lost so decisively in a rap battle is now trying to censor
the very track that ended him. Not by picking up the mic, but by going to court.
This isn’t the first time someone has tried to silence rappers from Compton over a rap record.
In 1987, Compton rap group N.W.A dropped their protest anthem “F**k tha Police”—and it got banned from radio. The FBI even sent a letter to Priority Records, the label distributing the song, blaming it for inciting
violence. Sound familiar? Now, decades later, Drake’s blaming “Not Like Us” for the shooting at his house—despite widespread claims it’s actually connected to another shooting just a week earlier, at The Weeknd’s manager Cash XO’s home. A security guard was shot there too—eerily similar to what happened at Drake’s.
Drake’s hiding behind legalese to mask what this really is: censorship. When Drake's lawyers argued against UMG's request to stay discovery, they mentioned Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl Halftime show stating: "Indeed, at the same time UMG has been delaying here, UMG launched new campaigns to further spread the defamatory content [“Not Like Us”], including at the 2025 Super Bowl halftime show, which had over 133.5 million viewers." Drake and his legal team are setting the stage to get "Not Like Us" banned, while he continues to dig for dirt and take shots at Kendrick—and anyone who so much as nodded their head to the song. At this point, it's clear Drake doesn’t want to win back the culture. He wants to silence the culture that clowned him.
The Real Plot Twist
No matter how far Drake gets in this frivolous lawsuit, the damage to his brand—and the reputation he claims to care so much about—is already done. He's the "rapper" who swapped the studio for the courtroom. The guy who brings a cease-and-desist to every rap battle. The one who made diss tracks a legal liability and gave labels a reason to start reviewing lyrics before they drop.
No more surprise responses 20 minutes later—gotta run it by legal first.
Drake didn't just lose the battle. He killed the party.
And if we start letting diss tracks get labeled defamation just because someone's ego got bruised, then the plot is more than twisted—it's lost.
Comment, Like, Share.Out Loud...Thanks!
Comments