As Drake’s lawsuit continues against his record label’s parent company, Universal Music Group (UMG), his lawyers have claimed that UMG’s British chair and chief executive Lucian Grainge had a “role in and knowledge of the scheme to defame and harass” Drake, and have requested that UMG produce texts and emails by Grainge.
UMG has previously denied access to those communications, stating that Grainge has “no meaningful involvement in the matters and decisions at issue in this litigation”.
Drake is suing UMG over its release of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us, which contains the line “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young … Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles”. The track was hugely popular, reaching No 1 in the US and UK, and was performed at the 2025 Super Bowl half-time show. Its artwork features an image of Drake’s home dotted with icons used to identify the homes of registered sex offenders.
Drake has strenuously denied the allegation that he is a paedophile. In his lawsuit filed in January, UMG is alleged to have “approved, published and launched a campaign to create a viral hit out of a rap track”, that was “intended to convey the specific, unmistakable, and false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal paedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response”. Drake is not suing Lamar himself.
UMG said the suit was “utterly without merit” but in April, Drake’s lawyers added an amendment to the suit, arguing that the Super Bowl performance “further solidified the public’s belief in the truth of the allegations against Drake”. UMG said Drake was “being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another”.
UMG claim that Grainge (pictured) ‘is not involved in record releases or marketing activities, even high-profile ones’. Photograph: Taylor Hill/FilmMagic
On Tuesday, Drake’s lawyers filed two new motions in the case, calling on the judge in the case to compel UMG to “collect, review, and produce” relevant documents from Grainge, arguing: “UMG’s refusal to permit relevant discovery into its CEO’s files is unsupported by law and would prejudice plaintiff’s ability to test and prove his claims.”
The motion argues that Drake “now also has reason to believe that Grainge was personally involved in decisions made regarding the marketing and promotion of [Not Like Us] around its release … Given that plaintiff has alleged Grainge to be one of the individuals at UMG who acted with actual malice, plaintiff is entitled to seek discovery into Grainge’s files for the purpose of proving Grainge’s actual malice”.
A letter from UMG’s legal team to Drake’s in July, denying access to Grainge’s documents, reads: “UMG has maintained since our first meet and confer on this topic that Sir Lucian had no meaningful involvement in the matters and decisions at issue in this litigation. Sir Lucian runs a global multinational company; he is not involved in record releases or marketing activities around individual tracks, even high-profile ones.” It adds that “to the extent his documents and communications contain any (limited) relevant information, it is expected to be cumulative and duplicative” of other UMG staff communications that the company has agreed to make available.
Lawyers for Drake claim UMG’s position has slightly changed from a previous claim of “no role in the matters”, to “no meaningful involvement”.
The second motion from Drake’s team seeks a different set of documents, “related to UMG’s historical censorship” of artists, arguing that UMG has the right to censor works when they contain defamatory statements, and has previously exercised that right.
It also argues that UMG encouraged competition between two of its labels: Republic, which releases Drake’s music, and Interscope, which releases Lamar’s. The specific allegation is “that the incentive structure for executives at UMG’s labels motivated UMG to defame Drake”. The motion requests various financial documents, as well as Lamar’s unredacted record contract.
UMG has not commented on the newly filed motions. The Guardian has contacted the company’s legal team for comment.
UMG is seeking to have the case dismissed, claiming in March that Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated … diss tracks are a popular and celebrated artform centred around outrageous insults, and they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed”.