Drake thinks UMG wanted creators to make Kendrick Lamar’s diss track go viral. He’s suing over it.

Kai Cenat and a handful of other content creators have been named in Drake‘s lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) where he accuses it of purposefully making Kendrick Lamar‘s diss track “Not Like Us” go viral.

Lamar dropped the track in May 2024 as the final clang in an ongoing rap battle with Drake. Like his prior track “Meet the Grahams,” Lamar used “Not Like Us” to accuse Drake of sexual misconduct and pedophilia–allegations the latter has denied. The song not only effectively ended the rap battle, but became a #1 song on Billboard‘s Hot 100 and the center of much discussion online.

It’s that second bit Drake is concerned about. His lawsuit targeting UMG (but, interestingly, not Lamar) accuses the music production company of whitelisting “Not Like Us” so creators across platforms like YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok could make content reacting to it without having their videos and streams demonetized.

The suit also accuses UMG of paying “influencers on Instagram and X to post content about [“Not Like Us”] for the purpose of spreading the content to larger audiences.” We know record labels pay to have songs promoted—in fact, it’s one of the primary ways music publishers of all sizes hype up new releases these days—but can’t independently verify whether UMG paid special attention to promoting “Not Like Us.”

As for reaction content, it points to YouTube videos and Twitch streams from creators like Cenat, RDC, No Life Shaq, CartierFamily, and Zias!.

One of the suit’s central claims is that these creators could not have posted content reacting to “Not Like Us” without getting demonetized unless UMG chose to whitelist the track. Whitelisting is a process where musicians and music publishers can tell content platforms they don’t want to copyright claim uses of a song. That way, systems like YouTube’s Content ID won’t flag or demonetize creators for using it.

We cannot independently verify whether UMG individually whitelisted “Not Like Us.” What we do know is that UMG has broad licensing agreements with YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok that allow creators on all three platforms to legally use music from its catalog. These agreements are often sweeping in nature and don’t usually single out individual artists or songs; instead, they give platforms and creators a large chunk of music they’re allowed to utilize in content. It’s possible that “Not Like Us” was covered by this prior agreements.

Are platforms cool with reaction content?

What’s also worth noting here is that Drake’s suit specifically targets reaction content, which is a thorny topic in the creator industry. It’s legally murky, since the whole premise is that a creator takes another person’s content, plays it for their audience, and reacts to it.

In most cases, wholesale taking another person’s content and rebroadcasting it is a copyright violation. But with reaction content, things can get messy, because if the reacting creator contributes enough new material on top of the rebroadcasted content, their reaction video or stream could be considered transformative—and therefore safe from copyright issues.

What constitutes “enough” new material? That’s where things are murky. And, in lots of cases, to avoid having to thread that murkiness, platforms will simply leave reaction content (a huge genre these days) alone.

Basically, the creators cited in Drake’s suit could have been allowed to monetize reaction content about “Not Like Us” because UMG clandestinely worked with platforms to whitelist this single track…or they could have been allowed because of prior licensing agreements and/or because platforms don’t police reaction content too stringently.

Whatever the situation was here, it’s important to know that the named creators aren’t being accused of anything. Drake’s sole target in this suit is UMG, which he accuses of promoting “Not Like Us” so it could have leverage over him in contract renewal discussions.

“As to Drake, in 2024, his contract was nearing fulfillment. On information and belief, UMG anticipated that extending Drake’s contract would come at a high cost to UMG; as such, it was incentivized to devalue Drake’s music and brand in order to gain leverage in negotiations for an extension,” the suit alleges.

UMG issued a statement Jan. 15, saying that it has “worked tirelessly for many years to help [Drake] achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”

“He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music,” it added.