Drake’s request for access to Kendrick Lamar’s confidential contract has led federal judges to warn that public deals could stabilize its business model and provide a strategic advantage for competitors.
UMG urged Judge Jeannette A. Vargas to keep Kendrick Lamar’s contract sealed, believing that even the edited section reveals sensitive terms that can be weaponized by rival record labels or artists in negotiations.
The document was filed as part of Drake’s ongoing libel lawsuit against UMG, which originated from Lamar’s 2024 Diss track “Don’t Like Us.”
“If these terms are disclosed, other artists can use them in their own negotiations with UMG and other record labels and use them when competing with UMG to sign or re-sign artists, including potential Lamar himself,” wrote UMG’s legal team.
UMG insists that the contract outlines current business dealings with Lamar and contains proprietary details about the company’s authority over his music and videos.
The tag says the issuance of these terms will damage its ability to negotiate future deals and may damage its relationship with Lamar.
The court highlighted that UMG’s contract with Lamar remained active and both parties expected confidentiality. The company cites legal precedent to back its request and points to a previous ruling where the judge protected the business contract from public disclosure to avoid competitive harm.
Drake’s lawsuit filed in January 2025 accused UMG of defamation and alleged that the label promoted “dislike us” to damage his reputation and put pressure on him to get him into an adverse recording agreement.
The lawsuit claims the song mistakenly portrayed him as a pedophile whose release led to three attempted family invasions in his Toronto estate, one of which resulted in the shooting of his security guard.
Drake also accused UMG of coordinating paid plans with Spotify, Ihearttradio and social media influencers to artificially enhance the exposure of songs.
UMG CEO Lucian Grainge regarded the lawsuit as “sarcastic” and said the tag had no intention of undermining Drake’s career.
“Drake claimed that I was “demeaning” his brand’s plan by publishing and promoting Kendrick Lamar’s recordings.
USA – It doesn’t make sense because the company I run, NV Universal Music Group, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Drake, including long-term and important financial support for his recording career, most of the purchase and ownership
His recording catalog and the right to purchase the copyright of music.
“My focus is on developing and implementing a global strategy that will make generations of UMGs. In view of this responsibility, my claim in the Weed is about the release and promotion of any particular sound record, thousands of UMG releases from around the world, are Farcical, which is Farcical.”
UMG asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the lyrics discussed are artistic opinions, not factual claims.
The court has not yet decided whether Kendrick Lamar’s contract will remain sealed.
