• Drake sued his own label, UMG Recordings, Inc, alleging defamation.
• He accused the label of approving and publishing Kendrick Lamar's diss track, which the suit said included false and dangerous allegations.
• UMG said it is fighting the case to protect other artists for "having done nothing more than write a song."

Drake filed a lawsuit against his own label, UMG Recordings, Inc., amid his ongoing beef with Kendrick Lamar.

The rapper, whose full name is Aubrey Drake Graham, accused Universal Music Group of approving and publishing Lamar's diss track "Not Like Us," which the complaint says includes allegations that UMG "understood were not only false, but dangerous."

The song "falsely accuses Drake of being a pedophile and calls for violent retribution against him," according to the lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.

"Even though UMG enriched itself and its shareholders by exploiting Drake's music for years, and knew that the salacious allegations against Drake were false, UMG chose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists," Drake, through his attorneys, stated in the lawsuit.

Representatives for Drake and UMG did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

UMG told The New York Times that it intends to fight the lawsuit to protect other artists for "having done nothing more than write a song."

The complaint pointed to one incident in May in which someone opened fire outside his Toronto home, striking the front door and wounding a security guard, who the lawsuit described as "one of Drake's friends."

In the days following, the lawsuit said there were two attempted break-ins at his property, one of which involved an individual who dug under the property's gate with his bare hands and "managed to yell racist slurs and threats against Drake before being escorted off the property."

The complaint underscored that Lamar was not named as a defendant. It said UMG's actions in publishing the track were the cause of the string of incidents.

The complaint further said that UMG did not help Drake when he confronted company executives about the situation.

The lawsuit is another escalation in the ongoing beef between two chart-topping rappers that started more than 10 years ago.

What began as an exchange of subtle shots and coded lyrics in their songs turned into an all-out musical brawl last year after Lamar once again declared himself the king of hip-hop in a collaborative track with rapper Future and producer Metro Boomin. In the song, he directly responded to Drake's 2023 track, "First Person Shooter."

Within a month, Drake and Lamar exchanged several searing diss tracks, at one point going beyond rap and taking shots at each others' character and personal lives.

Music critics and listeners widely saw "Not Like Us" as the final, decisive blow in the rap beef as the song received widespread acclaim and remained on Billboard's number one spot on the Hot Rap Songs chart for 21 weeks, breaking a record that was set by Lil Nas X's "Old Town Road."

The Compton-born rapper took a victory lap in June when he hosted a one-night concert in Inglewood, California, where he performed "Not Like Us" six times in a row.

The rivalry escalated in November when Drake involved the courts by filing a legal petition — which comes before a lawsuit — that accused UMG and Spotify of devising a scheme in order to make "Not Like Us" a viral hit at the expense of the Toronto rapper.

UMG previously denied the claims and called Drake's filing "contrived" and "absurd."

In a second legal petition from November, Drake attorneys' hinted at defamation claims against Universal and said that the label should have prevented the release of Lamar's "Not Like Us" due to the statements in the song.

• AI data centers are consuming significant power, impacting the electricity supply.
• Proximity to data centers correlated with distorted power readings, a Bloomberg analysis found.
• Big Tech companies are turning to alternative sources of energy as they build more data centers.

Data centers in the United States are consuming so much power that they may be impacting the flow of electricity to millions of Americans.

AI data centers are sprouting up across the country to meet the increased demand for AI, but they're also sucking up the power on which millions of Americans rely.

The new tech is demanding massive amounts of energy from grids that are, in some areas, already stressed. Researchers have estimated that AI centers could need three to five times the power used by traditional facilities, Business Insider previously reported.

A Bloomberg analysis assessed readings from some 770,000 homes from February to October and found that over 75% of "highly distorted power readings across the country are within 50 miles of significant data center activity."

Stresses on the power grid can lead to inconsistent power quality, and as the power quality decreases, the risk increases, Bloomberg reported. Inconsistent energy flow can cause electronics to overheat, leading to sparks or even house fires.

A small handful of large tech companies own the vast majority of global data centers — and they show no signs of slowing down as they pour billions into building more powerful AI models.

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft own about 65% of the cloud infrastructure market, which includes data centers, according to a 2023 report from market research firm Synergy Research Group.

Google announced in April that it's investing $3 billion to build and expand data centers in Virginia and Indiana. The search engine giant unveiled its latest AI model, Gemini 2.0, in December.

Amazon, which is a large investor in AI startup Anthropic, is investing another $10 billion in Ohio data centers, Gov. Mike DeWine announced on December 16.

Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion in ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, said in September that the company has partnered with other investors, including BlackRock, in a $100 billion energy infrastructure project. The project will include "new and expanded data centers," the company said.

To meet AI's increasing energy demands, companies like Google have also started turning to nuclear power to find more reliable and sustainable energy sources.

• Mark Zuckerberg's Meta urged California to halt OpenAI's transition to a for-profit company.
• In doing so, Zuckerberg sided with his occasional nemesis, Elon Musk, who also wants to stop OpenAI.
• It seems the two tech billionaires have finally found some common ground.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and X owner Elon Musk have long-standing beef about everything from artificial intelligence to how they run their respective social media platforms.

While that feud has lasted for the better part of a decade — and has even threatened to get physical — the two tech billionaires now agree on at least one thing: their competitor, OpenAI, should remain a nonprofit.

Zuckerberg's Meta asked the California attorney general on Friday to stop OpenAI from becoming a for-profit company. Meta accused Sam Altman's company of "taking advantage" of its status as a nonprofit to raise billions.

"OpenAI wants to change its status while retaining all of the benefits that enabled it to reach the point it has today. That is wrong. OpenAI should not be allowed to flout the law by taking and reappropriating assets it built as a charity and using them for potentially enormous private gains," Meta said in the letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

OpenAI is one of Meta's biggest competitors in the AI tech race.

"Failing to hold OpenAI accountable for its choice to form as a nonprofit could lead to a proliferation of similar startup ventures that are notionally charitable until they are potentially profitable," Meta wrote in the letter.

With that, Zuckerberg sided with Musk, who is engaged in an ongoing legal fight to prevent OpenAI from becoming a for-profit.

Musk, one of 11 OpenAI cofounders who split from the company early on, launched a second bid in November to stop OpenAI from making the transition, asking a court for an injunction against the company.

The injunction request also argues that OpenAI and Microsoft, the largest corporate investor in the AI startup, have worked together to build a "for-profit monopoly," engaging in anti-competitive behavior that also targets xAI, Musk's artificial intelligence venture.

OpenAI has fought back. On Friday, it published a blog post titled "Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit." The post includes a series of emails and messages between Musk and other cofounders, including Altman, going back as far as November 2015, a month before the company was founded.

In one of those emails, Musk responded to Altman's proposal to start a Delaware-based nonprofit: "Also, the structure doesn't seem optimal," Musk wrote.

Musk left the organization in 2018 in part because he believed OpenAI's "probability of success was 0," according to an OpenAI blog post from March. Musk has accused OpenAI of straying from its original mission to develop an artificial general intelligence that is safe and benefits humanity.

Almost a decade after its founding as a nonprofit, OpenAI is now eyeing the switch to a for-profit venture to generate more investor capital. In October, the company announced a $6.6 billion funding round, raising OpenAI's valuation to $157 billion. That investment, however, comes with a stipulation that OpenAI become a for-profit within two years.

Meanwhile, Meta said it plans to pour as much as $37 billion on infrastructure costs alone this year, largely related to AI. Musk's xAI told investors last month that it secured $5 billion in funding.

Musk and spokespeople for Meta and OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.