Issue No. 066 · Story 01 · October 19, 2026

Drake Faces Copyright Suit Over Janice STFU Chorus

Songwriter Aviel Calev Hirschfield sued Drake, OVO Sound and two Universal Music entities in Los Angeles federal court on October 16, alleging that Janice STFU copied the chorus of a demo he sent to producers working with Drake. Hirschfield claims the released track reproduces his lyrics, melody and cadence without credit or compensation. Drake's representatives deny the allegations and say he wrote the song. The complaint seeks damages and profits attributable to the alleged infringement.

§Hirschfield alleges that he completed his recording around January 25, 2026, over an instrumental supplied by production duo FnZ, then sent it to FnZ and other producers in Drake's circle. He says he heard the matching chorus when Janice STFU was released in May.
§The complaint identifies original lyrics and melody inspired by Lykke Li's I Follow Rivers. Hirschfield claims those additional contributions as his own, rather than claiming ownership of the earlier song.
§Recording stems and their metadata are central to the allegations. Hirschfield says they establish his earlier creation date; his complaint also alleges that Drake's representatives questioned whether those files had been altered.
§Drake's team categorically denies copying and describes the lawsuit as baseless. Hirschfield, who previously shared a songwriting credit with Drake on Beyonce's Heated, has requested a jury trial. No infringement finding has been made.

THE TAKEAWAY

The two disputes concern different forms of creative control: who wrote a song's chorus, and who authorized a celebrity's appearance on a retail box. Recording files and submission history sit at the center of the Drake allegations; consumer perception and image-licensing rights frame Dua Lipa's response to Samsung. Neither filing is a ruling on liability.

Filing: ESCA Filings

Same issue

Dua Lipa Pushes Back on Samsung's TV-Box Defense

Dua Lipa asked a Los Angeles federal judge to reject Samsung's motion to dismiss claims over her photograph on television packaging. In an October 15 opposition, she argues that the image could suggest an endorsement and that California law protects against its alleged commercial use without consent. Samsung maintains that the packaging depicted available entertainment content rather than a paid partnership. The dismissal motion remains pending.

Right of Publicity