Drake pushes to expose whether UMG CEO Lucian Grainge had a starring role in the Kendrick Lamar diss track Not Like Us

13 August 2025

Mark Blinch/Getty Images

Drake’s legal showdown with Universal Music Group (UMG) has escalated into a high‑stakes courtroom drama with his lawyers now claiming that Lucian Grainge, the UMG CEO, was more than a distant executive; they argue he played a direct role in approving and promoting Kendrick Lamar’s incendiary diss track Not Like Us.

The track, which leveled shocking accusations that Drake is a paedophile, became a viral cultural flashpoint performed at the Super Bowl halftime show and charting at number one in both the US and UK. Drake’s lawsuit, filed in January, accuses UMG of orchestrating its release and promotional strategy to destroy his reputation. He has repeatedly denied the allegations, and notably, Kendrick Lamar has not been named a defendant in the case. 

UMG has pushed back strongly, maintaining that Grainge has “no meaningful involvement” in individual track releases. They argue that searching his communications would yield nothing new beyond what UMG’s label staff has already provided, and Mueller's team deems the request unnecessary and burdensome. 

But Drake’s legal team, buoyed by "reason to believe" Grainge acted with what’s known legally as “actual malice,” is seeking a court order compelling UMG to produce the CEO’s emails and texts. Their aim: to uncover whether the CEO knowingly advanced defamatory content content that suggested the public should consider taking vigilante action against Drake. Their motion is as much about facts as it is about accountability and corporate responsibility in the age of viral media. 

In a separate but related legal maneuver, Drake’s lawyers are demanding documents tied to UMG’s history of censorship and internal incentives. They suggest that competitive pressure between two of its major labels Republic, which represents Drake, and Interscope, which backs Lamar may have fuelled a campaign to defame Drake. Among the materials requested are financial records and even Kendrick Lamar’s unredacted contract. 

The stakes are not just legal but cultural. Not Like Us ignited public debate. Lamar’s track became cultural firebrand, collecting multiple Grammy Awards and prompting conversations about rap feuds, boundary pushing in lyrics, and where artistic license ends and defamation begins. 

At its essence, the case raises profound questions. Can a label executive truly be shielded from accountability if the content they consent to release is defamatory? Is a diss track protected expression or a weaponized campaign that must be reined in by courts? And when does defamation cross into corporate and artistic misdeeds rather than mere braggadocio or rivalry?

With the discovery requests now targeting the very top of UMG’s hierarchy, the fight could redefine expectations for executive transparency in the music industry. Drake’s court filings are more than formal requests they are demands to understand who holds the strings in modern pop culture’s power plays, and how those strings were steered when a home‑grown beef exploded into global headlines.