iHeartMedia has settled a court dispute with Drake over allegations the radio network received “payola” from Universal Music Group (UMG) to play Kendrick Lamar’s anti-Drake diss track Not Like Us.
In a filing on Thursday (February 27) with the Bexar County District Court in San Antonio, Texas – where iHeartMedia is headquartered – lawyers for Drake said the rapper and the radio network had “reached an amicable resolution of the dispute to the satisfaction of both sides.”
No further details were offered in the court filing.
In a statement emailed to MBW, Drake’s legal team stated: “We are pleased that the parties were able to reach a settlement satisfactory to both sides, and have no further comment on this matter.”
However, the legal petition against UMG will remain active in the Texas district court.
Drake filed the petition with the court last November, alleging that UMG “designed, financed and then executed a plan” to turn Lamar’s Not Like Us “into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues.”
The petition cited an unnamed “inside source” that allegedly told Drake that UMG “made covert payments to a number of platforms, including radio stations, to play and promote Not Like Us without disclosing those payments to listeners. This practice, known as ‘payola,’ is prohibited by the Communications Act of 1934.”
UMG is the parent company of both Republic Records, which distributes Drake’s music, and Interscope, which distributes Kendrick Lamar’s music.
The petition also named iHeartMedia as a respondent. Drake’s lawyers admitted in court documents that they were “unable to confirm whether any iHeartRadio stations were among the stations paid as part of UMG’s [alleged] pay-to-play scheme,” but they suspected iHeartMedia’s involvement because it’s the “number one audio company” in the United States.
The petition is not a lawsuit, but rather a request for “pre-trial discovery” under Texas’ rules of civil procedure. Drake’s lawyers sought to depose UMG and iHeartMedia executives ahead of a potential lawsuit.
In January, UMG filed a motion to dismiss Drake’s petition, arguing that the petition is “an apparent effort to pressure [UMG and others] to limit the distribution of Not Like Us.”
UMG’s lawyers cited the Texas Citizens Participation Act, an “anti-SLAPP” law meant to prevent lawsuits that are “designed and intended to intimidate and punish people for exercising their First Amendment [freedom of speech] rights,” in the words of UMG’s motion.
The settlement between iHeartMedia and Drake comes as iHeartMedia faces a payola investigation by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over an unrelated matter.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr notified iHeartMedia last week that he is launching enforcement action against the company over allegations that the radio network has asked artists to perform without payment, or for reduced payment, at iHeart music festivals in exchange for “more favorable airplay.” The allegations specifically involve the iHeart Country Music Festival to be held in Austin, Texas, this coming May.
Lamar’s Drake diss track Not Like Us was one of the biggest hits of 2024, and has amassed more than 1.2 billion streams on Spotify since its release in May 2024.
Lamar performed the track during this year’s Super Bowl halftime show, a decision that was closely watched by music industry insiders, given the litigation Drake has launched over the track.
Besides the legal petition in Texas, Drake has also sued UMG for defamation in a federal court in New York, in which he accused the music company of promoting a “false and malicious narrative” about him via the content of the lyrics, single artwork and music video for Not Like Us.
He also claims that the release and promotion of the recording has resulted in “physical threat to [his] safety” as well as “the bombardment of online harassment,” and that Drake “fears for the safety and security of himself, his family and his friends.”
The lawsuit doesn’t name Lamar as a defendant, because, in the view of Drake’s lawyers, the case is “entirely about UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false but dangerous.”
A UMG spokesperson told MBW in January: “Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist — let alone Drake — is illogical.”
The spokesperson added: “We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.
“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists.
“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.
“We have not and do not engage in defamation — against any individual. At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”Music Business Worldwide
