In an unexpected plot twist, Drake has filed court documents accusing music conglomerate Universal Music Group and streaming service Spotify of conspiring to artificially inflate Kendrick Lamar‘s “Not Like Us” numbers by means of bots and payola. Drake’s company Future Moments LLC filed a pre-action petition in New York Supreme Court on Monday (Nov. 25), which accuses UMG of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the NY Deceptive Business Act and the NY False Advertising Act. Here’s a breakdown of the potential lawsuit.

The Allegations:

• The pre-action petition claims Spotify “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves” with “Not Like Us” in order to ensure the song went viral by means of bots, pay-to-play agreements and false advertising.
• UMG charged Spotify a 30 percent lower licensing rate in exchange for Spotify recommending the song to users who are searching for unrelated content. Neither company disclosed this licensing agreement.
• UMG, through Interscope, paid third parties to use software programs (bots) to inflate “Not Like Us” and trick consumers into believing the song was more popular than it actually was.
• An unknown individual revealed on a DJ Akademiks livestream that Kendrick’s “label” paid him $2,500 via a third party to help jumpstart the song’s campaign with bots. This individual claims they were offered another $2,500 and a percentage of the song’s sales.
• UMG hired third parties to inflate the numbers of the “Not Like Us” music video with bots.
• UMG paid Apple Inc. to have Siri purposely misdirect users to “Not Like Us” when they asked the digital assistant to pull up Drake’s Certified Lover Boy album.
• UMG engaged in payola with independent radio promotors who forwarded the funds to radio stations and radio employees to play “Not Like Us.”
• UMG paid the NFR X account to promote the single without disclosing payment.
• In an unprecedented move, UMG removed the “Not Like Us” copyright restrictions on YouTube and Twitch in order to incentivize influencers to spread the song.
• UMG’s scheme was motivated “by the desire of executives at Interscope to maximize their own profits.”
• UMG terminated employees who had an affiliation and loyalty to Drake.
• UMG refused to engage in negotiations after Drake notified them of the economic harm the song was having on his image and instead suggested he take legal action against Kendrick Lamar. The label threatened to take legal action against Kendrick Lamar if Drake sued them.
• Drake believes he has a cause for a civil RICO case because of alleged “predicate acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and/or bribery for UMG’s payments to unknown third parties in the form of reduced licensing fees to Spotify.”

This is a pre-action petition, which is filed in order to gather information for a potential lawsuit. Drake’s company has yet to officially sue the music companies.

A spokesperson for Universal Music Group has released the following statement to XXL in response to Drake’s accusations: “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” the statement reads. “We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”

A spokesperson for Spotify declined to comment on the allegations. XXL has reached out to Kendrick Lamar’s team and Drake’s team for comment.

Read More: 10 of the Most Diabolical Moments in Rap Beef History

See the Artists Drake Has Helped With His Midas Touch