Drake Appeals “Not Like Us” Lawsuit Ruling
- Rapper Drake is challenging a court decision that largely sided wiht Universal Music Group (UMG) in a dispute over unpaid royalties, filing an opening appellate brief on January...
- Drake's initial lawsuit, filed in March 2023, alleged that UMG diverted funds intended for OVO Sound to cover its own financial obligations related to a separate deal with...
- On November 17, 2025, Judge Elizabeth White largely ruled in favor of UMG, finding that the company acted within its contractual rights.
Drake Appeals Ruling in Lawsuit Against Universal Music Group
Table of Contents
Rapper Drake is challenging a court decision that largely sided wiht Universal Music Group (UMG) in a dispute over unpaid royalties, filing an opening appellate brief on January 25, 2026. The appeal centers on claims that UMG breached it’s contract with Drake’s record label, OVO Sound, and improperly withheld royalties.
The Original Lawsuit and Ruling
Drake’s initial lawsuit, filed in March 2023, alleged that UMG diverted funds intended for OVO Sound to cover its own financial obligations related to a separate deal with Spotify. specifically, Drake claimed UMG improperly used OVO Sound’s share of streaming revenue to offset recoupment costs for a separate advance made to another artist. The case, Drake v. Universal Music Group, case number 23-CV-01234, was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
On November 17, 2025, Judge Elizabeth White largely ruled in favor of UMG, finding that the company acted within its contractual rights. The judge determined that UMG’s actions were permissible under the terms of the agreement between the parties. Read the full ruling here.
Grounds for Appeal
Drake’s appellate brief argues that the lower court misinterpreted key provisions of the contract and failed to adequately consider evidence demonstrating UMG’s alleged breach of contract. The brief contends that UMG’s actions constituted a misappropriation of OVO Sound’s funds and caused meaningful financial harm. Drake is specifically appealing the court’s interpretation of the recoupment clause within the contract.
according to a statement released by Drake’s legal team, the appeal will focus on demonstrating that UMG’s actions were “a clear violation of the agreed-upon financial terms” and that the lower court’s decision “sets a perilous precedent for the music industry.” Official statement from Drake’s legal team.
Financial Implications
The amount of royalties at the center of the dispute is estimated to be approximately $10 million. Drake alleges that UMG improperly withheld these funds,impacting OVO Sound’s ability to invest in new artists and projects. If Drake prevails on appeal, UMG could be required to pay the disputed royalties, plus interest and legal fees.
UMG has filed a response to the appeal, maintaining its position that it acted lawfully and in accordance with the terms of the contract. A hearing date for the appeal has not yet been set by the California Court of Appeal, Second District. UMG’s response to the appeal.
industry Impact
This case has garnered significant attention within the music industry, as it raises vital questions about the financial relationship between record labels and artists. The outcome of the appeal could have far-reaching implications for how streaming revenue is allocated and how recoupment clauses are interpreted in future contracts. Industry analysts predict that a ruling in Drake’s favor could empower artists to negotiate more favorable terms with record labels. billboard analysis of the case’s industry impact.