DRAKE NAMES 63 WITNESSES IN CASE AGAINST UMG

In a significant escalation of his legal battle against Universal Music Group (UMG), Canadian rapper Drake has named 63 potential witnesses in his defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.” The lawsuit, filed in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses UMG of orchestrating a campaign to promote the song, which Drake claims falsely labels him a “certified pedophile” and incites harm against him. The extensive witness list, detailed in a June 2 filing made public on July 14, 2025, includes high-profile music executives, streaming platforms, and media entities, signaling a broad investigation into alleged misconduct by UMG.

Background of the Lawsuit

The feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, both signed to different divisions of UMG—Drake under Republic Records and Lamar under Interscope—intensified in 2024 with a series of diss tracks. Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” released in May 2024, became a cultural phenomenon, reaching No. 1 in the U.S. and U.K. and winning five Grammy Awards in 2025, including Record and Song of the Year. The track’s lyrics, which include accusations of pedophilia and cultural appropriation, are at the heart of Drake’s lawsuit. Drake alleges that UMG knowingly promoted defamatory content to boost the song’s popularity, using tactics such as bots and undisclosed financial incentives to inflate streaming numbers.

Drake’s legal team claims UMG’s actions led to real-world consequences, including a May 7, 2024, shooting of a security guard at Drake’s Toronto home—depicted on the song’s cover art—and subsequent break-ins. The lawsuit further alleges that UMG’s promotion of the track during high-profile events, such as Lamar’s 2025 Super Bowl LIX Halftime Show performance and the 2025 Grammy Awards, amplified the defamatory narrative to damage Drake’s reputation and leverage in contract negotiations.

The Witness List

Drake’s “initial disclosure” filing lists 63 individuals and entities believed to possess evidence supporting his claims. The list includes:

• Music Industry Executives: Key UMG figures such as CEO Sir Lucian Grainge, Universal Music Publishing Group CEO Jody Gerson, Interscope CEO John Janick, and Republic Records co-founders Avery and Monte Lipman. These executives are cited as having knowledge of UMG’s alleged promotional tactics.

• Lamar’s Associates: Former Top Dawg Entertainment president Dave Free and Kendrick Lamar’s manager, Anthony Saleh, are named, though Lamar himself is notably absent from Drake’s witness list.

• Streaming and Social Media Platforms: Companies like Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, SoundCloud, Deezer, TIDAL, TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, and Instagram are included. Drake’s team seeks information on UMG’s alleged use of “covert tactics” to boost the song’s streams and visibility.

• Media and Event Organizers: The NFL, Fox, Roc Nation (tied to the Super Bowl performance), and the Recording Academy (linked to the Grammy Awards) are listed for their roles in featuring “Not Like Us” at major events.

• Other Figures: Kojo Asamoah, whom Drake accuses of facilitating payments for bot-driven stream manipulation, is a focal point, with a motion to subpoena him included in the filing.

In contrast, UMG’s witness list, dated March 24, 2025, is significantly shorter, naming only nine potential witnesses, including both Drake and Kendrick Lamar. UMG’s lawyers argue that Lamar has “discoverable information” about the song’s creation, distribution, and promotion.

Legal Arguments and Developments

Drake’s lawsuit asserts that UMG’s actions were not only defamatory but also strategically motivated to weaken his bargaining power as his contract nears its end. His legal team, led by Michael J. Gottlieb, compares the case to “Pizzagate,” alleging a coordinated effort to spread false narratives. They claim UMG removed copyright restrictions to allow widespread use of the song and used bots to artificially inflate its streaming numbers.

UMG has vehemently denied these allegations, calling the lawsuit “meritless” and “illogical,” given their long-standing support for Drake’s career. In March 2025, UMG filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the song’s lyrics are “nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole” typical of rap battles. Legal scholars from UC-Irvine have supported UMG’s stance, stating that diss tracks are understood by audiences as exaggerated rather than factual.

A key development occurred in April 2025 when Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied UMG’s request to delay discovery, allowing Drake’s team to access documents related to Lamar’s contract, UMG’s promotional activities, and executive compensation. A ruling on UMG’s motion to dismiss is still pending, which will determine whether the case proceeds to trial.

Public and Industry Reaction

The lawsuit has sparked significant online buzz, with social media posts highlighting the scale of Drake’s witness list and speculating on its implications. Some X users view the 63-witness list as a sign of a “fishing expedition,” while others see it as a bold move to hold UMG accountable. The case has also reignited discussions about artist-label dynamics and the ethics of promotional tactics in the music industry.

Legal experts have expressed skepticism about Drake’s chances of success, citing the challenges of proving defamation in the context of a rap battle’s hyperbolic lyrics. Entertainment attorney Camron Dowlatshahi noted that the lawsuit could impact Drake’s relationships with distributors and alienate fans who disapprove of legal resolutions to rap disputes.

Implications for the Music Industry

Drake’s lawsuit, with its extensive witness list, underscores broader tensions between artists and major labels. By targeting UMG’s alleged misconduct, Drake aims to expose what his team describes as systemic exploitation of artists for corporate gain. The inclusion of streaming platforms and media entities suggests a potential examination of how digital algorithms and high-profile events shape music consumption and public perception.

As the case progresses, it could set precedents for how defamation claims are handled in the context of artistic expression and label practices. The music industry is watching closely, as the outcome may influence future artist-label contracts and the use of promotional strategies. For now, the legal battle continues to unfold, with Drake’s 63-witness list signaling a determined effort to challenge one of the industry’s most powerful players.