![](\"https:\/\/app.hiphopdx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/drake-reportedly-says-iheart-media-did-nothing-wrong-as-part-of-not-like-us-settlement.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Drake settled his petition against iHeartMedia<\/a> over Kendrick Lamar\u2018s \u201cNot Like Us\u201d after reportedly receiving proof that the company \u201cdid nothing wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n In his petition, which was filed in November, the Canadian rapp<\/a>er raised suspicions that UMG may have paid iHeartMedia to play\u00a0 \u201cNot Like Us\u201d on its many radio stations across the country, an illegal practice known as payola.<\/p>\n AD LOADING…<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The filing was not a lawsuit, but instead sought depositions from representatives of both UMG and iHeartMedia for a potential future lawsuit in Bexar County, Texas.<\/p>\n In an amendment to his Texas petition on Wednesday (February 26), Drizzy\u2019s legal team notified the court that he has decided to remove iHeartMedia as a respondent.<\/p>\n It noted that the two parties \u201chave reached an amicable resolution of the dispute to the satisfaction of both sides.\u201d<\/p>\n Now in a new report from Rolling Stone<\/a><\/em>, a source from iHeart added more insight into the settlement.<\/p>\n \u201cIn exchange for documents that showed iHeart did nothing wrong, Drake agreed to drop his petition. No payments were made \u2013 by either one of us,\u201d the unnamed source said.<\/p>\n A representative for Drake\u2019s legal team responded to\u00a0HipHopDX<\/em>\u2018s request for comment, saying: \u201cThe parties have reached a resolution, and we have no further comment on this matter.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Despite the removal of the media company from his Texas filing, Drake still plans to move forward with his case against UMG in federal court in New York.<\/p>\n His lawyers recently brought Kendrick\u2019s Super Bowl performance into the battle when responding to UMG\u2019s claim that his side was getting ready to drop \u201ckey allegations\u201d\u00a0in their suit against the music giant.<\/p>\n Drake\u2019s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb hit back, saying that UMG is concerned about only a \u201csingle factual allegation\u201d \u2014 one that, even if Drake adjusted the lawsuit to deal with the company\u2019s concerns, would result in very minimal changes.<\/p>\n The back-and-forth centered around a pre-trial conference scheduled for April 2 that UMG wants to delay so that Judge Vargas can have time to consider the company\u2019s motion to dismiss the case entirely \u2014 a motion they have to file by March 17.<\/p>\n Gottlieb argued against delaying discovery in his letter to Judge Vargas, citing Kendrick\u2019s Super Bowl performance as an example of the harm that comes with waiting.<\/p>\n \u201c[D]elaying discovery would unfairly prejudice [Drake], who is continuing to suffer the consequences of UMG\u2019s defamatory campaign,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIndeed, at the same time UMG has been delaying here, UMG launched new campaigns to further spread the defamatory content [\u2018Not Like Us\u2019], including at the 2025 Super Bowl halftime show, which had over 133.5 million viewers.\u201d<\/p>\n Drake has alleged that UMG illegally boosted \u201cNot Like Us\u201d to harm his career and to provide the record label significant leverage when renegotiating his contract. UMG has denied any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n If you liked the article, do not forget to share it with your friends. Follow us on\u00a0Google News<\/a><\/span>\u00a0too, click on the star and choose us from your favorites.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you want to read more Like this articles, you can visit our Social Media category.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\nAD<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n