Drake has taken legal action against Kendrick Lamar’s performance of ‘Not Like Us’ at the Super Bowl, adding it to his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over the diss track and its allegations of pedophilia.
‘The Recording was performed during the 2025 Super Bowl and broadcast to the largest audience for a Super Bowl halftime show ever, over 133 million people, including millions of children, and millions more who had never before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it,’ says the amended lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan.
It adds, ‘It was the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to ᴀssᴀssinate the character of another artist.’
This year’s Super Bowl, which saw the Philadelphia Eagles beat the Kansas City Chiefs 40-22 in New Orleans, and its halftime show were the most-watched ever, according to Nielsen.
Although Lamar removed the word ‘pedophile’ that’s in the track during the halftime show, the fact that it was omitted showed that ‘nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory,’ the suit says.
It also alleges Universal Music used financial benefits and leveraged business relationships to secure the headliner spot for Lamar at the Super Bowl, and promoted the performance.
Kendrick Lamar performs during halftime of the Chiefs-Eagles Super Bowl in New Orleans
Drake claims Kendrick Lamar’s performance was ‘orchestrated to ᴀssᴀssinate’ his character
Read More Serena Williams addresses claim she threw shade at Drake with Kendrick Lamar Super Bowl cameo 
‘Drake’s amended complaint makes an already strong case stronger,’ his lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, said in a statement.
‘Drake will expose the evidence of UMG´s misconduct, and UMG will be held accountable for the consequences of its ill-conceived decisions.’
In a statement responding to the court filing, Universal Music, the parent record label of both artists, continued to deny Drake’s allegations.
‘Drake, unquestionably one of the world´s most accomplished artists and with whom we´ve enjoyed a 16-year successful relationship, is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another,’ the company said. ‘It is shameful that these foolish and frivolous legal theatrics continue.’
A spokesperson for Drake said in a prepared release that the artist is ‘holding the largest music conglomerate in the world accountable for its actions and doing so without fear.’
The amended lawsuit also adds that defamatory portions of ‘Not Like Us’ were played at the Grammy Awards in February, when the single won five awards, including song and record of the year.
The suit claims that Universal Music also helped secure the Grammy nominations and allowed the song to be played at the ceremony.
Drake sued Universal Music, but not Lamar, for undisclosed damages in January, saying the company published and promoted ‘Not Like Us’ despite its false pedophilia allegations and suggestions that listeners should resort to vigilante justice.
Lamar removed the word ‘pedophile’ that’s in the track during the halftime show
The result, the suit says, was intruders shooting a security guard at Drake´s Toronto home and two attempted break-ins there, online hate and harᴀssment, a hit to his reputation and a decrease in his brand´s value before his contract renegotiation with UMG this year. The amended lawsuit also adds more online comments indicating people believe the pedophilia allegations.
Drake, a 38-year-old Canadian rapper and singer and five-time Grammy winner, and Lamar, a 37-year-old Pulitzer Prize winner with 22 Grammy wins, have been beefing for years. The feud is among the biggest in hip hop in recent years.
The two were occasional collaborators more than a decade ago, but Lamar began taking public jabs at Drake starting in 2013. The fight escalated steeply last year, as both launched diss tracks at each other, including Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us.’
In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Universal Music says Drake helped fuel the beef with his own inflammatory diss tracks aimed at Lamar.
‘Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,’ the motion says.
‘Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.’
