Universal Music Group (UMG) has filed a motion seeking to dismiss a lawsuit brought by rapper Drake, asserting that the legal action stems from a “lost rap battle” with Kendrick Lamar and is an attempt to “salve his wounds.”
The motion, filed in a New York court and reviewed by Variety, presents a sharp rebuke of Drake’s claims that UMG improperly promoted Lamar’s track “Not Like Us,” a song that Drake alleges contains defamatory and false accusations.
“Drake lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,” the motion states. “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds. Plaintiff’s Complaint is utterly without merit and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
The core of UMG’s argument rests on the assertion that Drake’s lawsuit lacks legal foundation. The company contends that Drake fails to establish a viable claim for defamation, arguing that Lamar’s lyrics constitute “nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, not fact.” This distinction, according to UMG, negates any claim of malice, a necessary element for defamation lawsuits.
Furthermore, UMG highlighted Drake’s previous stance on the use of rap lyrics in legal proceedings. The motion cites a public petition signed by Drake less than three years ago, which criticized “the trend of prosecutors using artists’ creative expression against them.” UMG argues that Drake’s current lawsuit contradicts his previous position. “Drake was right then and is wrong now,” the motion reads. “Complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar.”
The motion also addresses Drake’s claims of harassment and violations of New York General Business Law, stating that these claims lack sufficient legal basis. UMG argues that Drake’s lawsuit creates a double standard, suggesting that the company should be expected to promote his diss tracks against Lamar but not vice versa.
In response to UMG’s motion, Drake’s attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb, issued a statement to Variety, accusing UMG of attempting to divert attention from its alleged misconduct. “UMG wants to pretend that this is about a rap battle in order to distract its shareholders, artists and the public from a simple truth: a greedy company is finally being held responsible for profiting from dangerous misinformation that has already resulted in multiple acts of violence,” Gottlieb stated. “This motion is a desperate ploy by UMG to avoid accountability, but we have every confidence that this case will proceed and continue to uncover UMG’s long history of endangering, abusing and taking advantage of its artists.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Drake’s initial lawsuit, filed in January, alleged that UMG “approved, published, and launched a campaign to create a viral hit out of a rap track” that was “intended to convey the specific, unmistakable, and false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal pedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response.”
This legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of a broader dispute between Drake and UMG. In a separate legal action in Texas, UMG also filed a motion to dismiss Drake’s petition for pre-suit deposition. That petition sought to compel UMG to provide evidence regarding its alleged role in artificially inflating and promoting “Not Like Us” following its release in May of the previous year. UMG has argued that Drake’s claims in that petition lack sufficient evidence.
The dispute has drawn significant attention within the music industry, highlighting the complex relationship between artists and record labels in the digital age. The use of social media and streaming platforms to amplify and disseminate music has created new challenges and opportunities for both artists and labels.
The legal arguments presented by UMG and Drake’s responses indicate a protracted legal battle. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for how rap lyrics are interpreted in legal contexts and the extent to which record labels can be held liable for the content they distribute. The case also brings to the forefront the issue of artistic expression versus legal ramifications. The public discourse surrounding the case will likely remain active, especially given the global popularity of the artists involved.
