The legal battle between hip-hop titans Drake and Kendrick Lamar has intensified as Drake’s legal team secured access to a heavily redacted copy of Lamar’s Universal Music Group (UMG) contract, a document central to allegations that the label exercised control over the release of Lamar’s controversial track “Not Like Us.”
The 22-page contract, described by Drake’s attorneys as “unreadable and incomprehensible” due to extensive redactions, remains sealed under a protective order issued by Judge Jeanette A. Vargas, limiting access exclusively to attorneys and parties directly involved in the case.
Drake’s legal team continues to pursue less redacted versions of the document, arguing that UMG’s heavy censorship violates the agreed “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” protective terms. The contract forms a cornerstone of Drake’s defamation lawsuit, which alleges UMG deliberately chose to release and promote Lamar’s track containing what Drake claims are false and damaging allegations against him.
Attorneys battle for unredacted contract details central to Drake’s defamation case against UMG’s alleged promotion of damaging content.
UMG has vigorously defended its redactions, asserting the contract contains commercially sensitive information about creative control and release rights that could harm business relationships and competitive negotiations with other artists if disclosed.
The label initially resisted discovery requests involving CEO Lucian Grainge and other executives, claiming “apex custodian” status, though they’ve since relaxed some of this resistance under legal pressure.
The discovery process has expanded to include internal UMG communications, with Drake’s team pursuing emails and text messages related to the release of “Not Like Us.” Drake intends to file the contract as part of a motion to compel UMG to produce an unredacted version. Their requests also encompass documentation about alleged bot manipulation to inflate streaming numbers for the track.
This high-profile dispute highlights broader industry tensions regarding label control over artist content and creative output.
Drake’s lawsuit specifically aims to establish that UMG had contractual authority over Lamar’s releases and knowingly permitted defamatory content that damaged Drake’s reputation.
As the case progresses, both sides continue to battle over the scope and sufficiency of discovery, with Drake’s team aggressively pursuing evidence to support their claims of a concerted effort by UMG and Lamar to harm Drake’s public image through the controversial track.
Judge Vargas granted Drake access to the contract with the explicit designation that it be labeled Attorneys Eyes Only to ensure confidentiality while still allowing relevant parties to review the material.
The case has sparked discussions about performance royalties and how PROs like ASCAP or BMI might handle licensing for tracks involved in defamation disputes.
The lawsuit raises significant questions about how sync deals and licensing arrangements for visual media might be affected by this precedent-setting case between two of music’s biggest stars.
