Drake has launched two legal actions against Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate interest in Kendrick Lamar’s diss track about him, Not Like Us, while suppressing his own music, as well as accusing them of defamation.

In a petition filed to the New York supreme court on Monday, attorneys for Drake’s company Frozen Moments LLC accused UMG and the streaming service of having “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves”, using various tactics to make Lamar’s song more popular.

“UMG … conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of Not Like Us and deceive consumers into believing the song was more popular than it was in reality,” Drake’s lawyers write.

The petition also alleges that UMG paid influencers to promote Not Like Us on social media and set up pay-to-play agreements with radio stations.

A day later, Drake filed a separate legal action in Texas accusing UMG of defamation. The filing, which like the legal action in New York is not a lawsuit but a request for information from key players for a potential future lawsuit, claims that the company was aware that Not Like Us “falsely” accused him of pedophilia, but distributed the track anyway.

According to the petition, the company “could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed. But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn Not Like Us into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”

In the petition, Drake’s attorneys said they had enough evidence to demonstrate defamation by UMG, and that they were considering allegations of civil fraud and racketeering.

A spokesperson for UMG told the Guardian: “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue. 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.” Spotify declined to comment.

Both Drake and Lamar have been associated with UMG for their entire careers: Drake via Republic Records and Lamar via Interscope. The company owns both labels.

But it is an extraordinary step in an escalating battle between the two rappers, which began as an exchange of diss tracks. In songs including Euphoria, Meet the Grahams and Not Like Us, Lamar accused Drake of having sexual relationships with underage girls, as well as fathering secret children. In response, Drake released tracks including Family Matters and The Heart Part 6, which accused Lamar of domestic abuse and infidelity, criticised his collaboration with Taylor Swift and mocked his height. Both Drake and Lamar have always denied any wrongdoing.

Drake’s petition alleges that UMG reduced the licensing rates it charges Spotify in exchange for the streamer recommending Lamar’s track to its users even when they searched for unrelated songs or artists. The petition also claims that UMG paid Apple to make its digital assistant Siri “purposely misdirect” users who asked to listen to Drake’s songs to instead stream Not Like Us.

The petition also alleges that UMG’s “scheme” led to Not Like Us being streamed 900m times, making it the most-streamed diss track in Spotify history. The track holds Spotify records for biggest single-day streams for a hip-hop song (12.8m) and the most song streams in a week by a rapper (81.2m).

Drake’s attorneys allege that “UMG’s schemes … were motivated, at least in part, by the desire of executives at Interscope to maximize their own profits”, and that the success of Not Like Us had led to a boost in streaming of Lamar’s back catalogue, which financially benefited UMG.

The petition claims Drake “repeatedly sought to engage UMG in discussions to resolve the ongoing harm he has suffered as a result of UMG’s actions” but claims that the music giant has “no interest in taking responsibility for its misconduct” and instead “pointed the finger” at Lamar, directing Drake to sue the rapper and not UMG.

Drake’s attorneys claim they had “received information that UMG has been taking steps in an apparent effort to conceal its schemes, including, but not limited to, by terminating employees associated with or perceived as having loyalty to Drake”.

They allege UMG violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – a federal statute widely known as “Rico”, which is often used in criminal cases against organised crime – as well as deceptive business practices and false advertising.