Spotify has responded sharply to legal claims by Drake, who alleged the streaming platform and Universal Music Group (UMG) artificially boosted Kendrick Lamar’s track “Not Like Us.” The platform dismissed the accusations as baseless, calling the legal actions a “subversion” of the judicial process and urging their dismissal.
Drake’s filings, submitted last month, accused Spotify and UMG of orchestrating an illegal scheme involving bots, payola, and reduced licensing fees to amplify Lamar’s song—a track that targeted Drake amidst an ongoing feud. Spotify’s legal response, filed in Manhattan court, firmly denied any evidence of wrongdoing. “Spotify and UMG have never had any such arrangement,” stated the company’s attorneys.
The streaming giant went further, criticizing the Canadian rapper’s decision to pursue a “pre-action” discovery petition instead of filing a formal lawsuit. Spotify argued that this approach sought to bypass typical legal standards, as Drake’s allegations lacked the evidence to survive a standard dismissal motion.
Claims of Bots and Payola Under Fire
Central to Drake’s claims was the suggestion that bots fraudulently boosted “Not Like Us” streams by 30 million and that Spotify had reduced licensing rates to promote the track. Spotify refuted these allegations, emphasizing its significant investment in mitigating artificial streaming. David Kaefer, Spotify’s vice president of music, testified that the platform actively removes manipulated streams to protect royalty payouts for legitimate artists.
Further, Spotify noted that the only promotional tool purchased for “Not Like Us” was a €500 Marquee ad in France, a clearly disclosed sponsored recommendation. The company stated it had no financial incentive to favor Lamar’s music over Drake’s extensive catalog.
UMG, which has yet to file a formal court response, previously described the allegations as “offensive and untrue,” reiterating that fans choose their preferred music.
A Heated Feud Extends to the Courts
Drake’s legal actions mark a dramatic escalation in his feud with Lamar. The dispute, which began with diss tracks exchanged earlier this year, took a personal turn when Lamar’s lyrics accused Drake of inappropriate relationships—a claim the rapper has denied. Lamar’s surprise album, GNX, reignited tensions, prompting Drake to respond legally.
In addition to the claims against Spotify, Drake filed a separate action in Texas, accusing UMG of defamation for distributing a song with false allegations against him. The lawsuit also alleged that UMG funneled payments to iHeart Radio as part of a “pay-to-play scheme” to promote Lamar’s music on-air.
While the outcome of these legal battles remains uncertain, the high-profile case underscores the challenges of proving allegations involving artificial streaming and deceptive practices in the music industry. Spotify highlighted the difficulty of substantiating claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), particularly when Drake’s petitions rely heavily on speculation and anonymous sources.
For now, the feud between Drake, Lamar, and their respective teams continues to play out in both courtrooms and the cultural spotlight, fueling debates over ethics, competition, and artistry in the streaming era.
