Cordae Faces $25 Million Lawsuit Claiming Anderson .Paak Collab Album Breaches Record Deal
MMMG Inc., a Florida-based label, has sued rapper Cordae, alleging he breached an exclusive record deal by preparing to release a collaborative album with Anderson .Paak through other companies. The case could affect the album’s release and raises a dispute over who controls Cordae’s recordings and related commercial rights.
The album, *Heavy is the Crown*, is scheduled for 23 October through APESHIT, Mass Appeal and EMPIRE. MMMG says it signed Cordae in 2018, released his first two albums and owns his recorded copyrights, as well as rights to merchandise, touring and endorsements; it also alleges past unpaid merchandise profits. Cordae’s team argues the contract is no longer valid because MMMG changed distributors from Atlantic to Stem in 2025, a claim the label disputes. MMMG seeks $25 million and has also brought claims against the three companies involved in the release; .Paak is not named or accused of wrongdoing.
- MMMG alleges Cordae breached an exclusive record deal.
- The label seeks $25 million in damages.
- Anderson .Paak is not named in the lawsuit.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
MMMG can argue that an exclusive recording agreement should remain binding unless its terms were properly ended, and that releasing the album through other companies could undermine rights it says it acquired when it signed Cordae and developed his early career. If the label’s account of its recording, commercial and profit-sharing rights is supported by the contract, seeking an injunction or damages could be a legitimate way to protect those rights.
The case against
Cordae’s team can argue that MMMG’s change of distributor may have breached the agreement or otherwise ended the label’s exclusive rights, leaving Cordae free to release new work elsewhere. They may also contend that the label’s claimed control over the album and related commercial activity is too broad or no longer applies; the contract’s terms and the effect of the distributor change are disputed.