Settlement Reached Between IheartMedia and Drake
IheartMedia settled a court dispute with Drake regarding the accusations that the radio network received Payola from Universal Music Group (UMG) to play Kendrick Lamar’s track Not Like WeField.
During the submission on Thursday (February 27) in the district court of Bexar in San Antonio, Texas, where IheartMedia’s headquarters is located, Drake’s lawyers stated that the rapper and the radio network “reached a friendly resolution of the dispute to satisfy both sides.”
No additional details were provided in the judicial file.
In an application by email to MBW, Drake’s legal team expressed: “We are glad that the parties were able to achieve a settlement satisfactory for both parties and will not comment on this issue.”
Nevertheless, the legal action against UMG will remain active in the Texas district court.
Drake’s Legal Challenges Against UMG
Drake filed a petition with the court in November last year, claiming that UMG “designed, financed, and then fulfilled the plan” to turn Lamar’s Not Like We into a viral mega-hit with the intention of harming Drake and his enterprises to create consumer hysteria and, of course, huge profits.
The petition cited an unnamed “internal source,” which allegedly informed Drake that UMG “made hidden payments to a number of platforms, including radio stations, to play and promote Not Like We without revealing these payments to the listeners. This practice, known as Payola, is prohibited by the 1934 communications law.”
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 acknowledged in court documents that they “could not confirm whether there were any IheartRadio stations among the stations paid in the (alleged) scheme of UMG’s payment players,” but they suspected IheartMedia’s involvement due to its status as the “number one audio company” in the United States.
The petition is not a lawsuit, but a request for “pre-trial discovery” under Texas civil procedural rules. Drake’s lawyers sought to depose the leaders of UMG and IheartMedia in anticipation of a potential trial.
In January, UMG filed a motion to dismiss Drake’s petition, arguing that the request is an “obvious attempt to pressure (UMG and others) to limit the distribution of Not Like We.
UMG’s lawyers cited Texas citizens’ participation law, the Anti-SLAPP law, which aims to prevent lawsuits designed to intimidate and punish individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights, as stated in UMG’s motion.
FCC Investigation into IheartMedia
The settlement between IheartMedia and Drake coincides with IheartMedia facing an investigation by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on an unrelated issue.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr notified IheartMedia last week that he is initiating law enforcement actions against the company on charges that the radio network asked artists to perform without payment or to reduce payments at Iheart music festivals in exchange for “more favorable airplay.” The accusations specifically involve the Iheart Country Music Festival set to be held in Austin, Texas, in May of this year.
Lamar’s track Not Like We became one of the largest hits of 2024, amassing over 1.2 billion streams on Spotify since its release in May 2024.
Lamar performed the track during a break in this year’s Super Bowl, a highly scrutinized decision given the ongoing litigation involving Drake.
In addition to the legal action in Texas, Drake has also sued UMG for defamation in federal court in New York, accusing the music company of promoting a “false and malicious story” about him through the content of texts, single art, and the music video for Not Like We.
He claims that the release and promotion of the record have led to “physical threats to his security,” as well as “bombarding of online presence,” stating that Drake “is afraid for the safety of himself, his family, and his friends.”
The lawsuit does not name Lamar as a defendant, as Drake’s lawyers maintain that the case is “entirely about UMG, a music company that decided to publish, promote, and monetize accusations they believe to be not only false but also dangerous.”
A representative of UMG stated to MBW in January: “These claims not only lack factual support but the notion that we would seek to damage the reputation of any artist—not to mention Drake—is illogical.”
The representative added: “We have invested significantly in his music, and our employees worldwide have worked for years to help him achieve unprecedented commercial and personal financial success.
“Throughout his career, Drake has deliberately and successfully leveraged UMG to disseminate his music and poetry, often using outrageous rap bites to express his feelings toward other artists.
“Now, he seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence the artist’s creative expression and seek damages from UMG for the dissemination of this artist’s music.
“We neither have nor engage in defamation against anyone. Meanwhile, we will vigorously defend this trial to protect our staff and reputation, as well as any artist who may become an unwarranted judicial target simply for writing a song.”
Drake reaches settlement with iHeartMedia in legal dispute over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’
