There are a lot of bad actors looking for clicks/views who are dedicated to spreading misinformation about this case. We highly encourage you to consider the source and review the actual court documents for yourself, in full.

Why is UMG hesitant to provide Drake's attorneys with Lucian Grainge's relevant email and text message communications? Maybe because if it's revealed to investors that the CEO approved of or participated in conduct that allegedly devalued one of the company's biggest assets, it

To support UMG Recordings’ opposition to the motion to compel, CEO Lucian Grainge has submitted a 2-page declaration explaining why document production from him is unnecessary.

UMG’s opposition to the motion to compel essentially suggests that anything Drake’s legal team seeks from Sir Lucian Grainge can be found by searching through documents of other UMG executives instead, specifically those at Interscope Records.

Drake is the model plaintiff. While the public and his peers dissect (and misunderstand) the ongoing case against UMG Recordings, he remains silent. Not a single word spoken. Time will reveal everything.

We are building a group message for Community Notes contributors on X to add notes to posts spreading misinformation. If you are a Community Notes contributor who is interested, please direct message us to be added. If not, please apply to become a contributor and inform us

OVODocket Opinion: Why is UMG Recordings hesitant to provide Drake’s legal team with the unredacted version of Kendrick Lamar’s recording contract? Two things. 1. We believe it’s because Interscope Records was irresponsible enough to place certain stipulations in Kendrick