Drake has launched a second legal action against Universal Music Group, accusing the music giant of defamation and claiming it could have halted the release of Kendrick Lamar’s song Not Like Us for “falsely accusing him of being a sex offender.”
It follows an initial petition launched Monday alleging UMG, the distributor for the record labels of both Drake and Lamar, and streamer Spotify conspired to falsely boost the popularity of Lamar’s diss track amid a beef between the two hip-hop superstars. None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Experts have called the petitions unprecedented and say they could have not only legal, but significant cultural implications for Drake and the world of hip-hop.
Legal filings and potential fallout
The first thing to understand about all of this is that no lawsuits have been filed yet.
A petition, which is what both of Drake’s filings are, comes prior to a lawsuit and is aimed at preserving and obtaining information from figures that might support Drake’s accusations in a future lawsuit, according to Bryan Sullivan, a founding partner at the law firm Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae who specializes in risk management in the entertainment industry.
Spotify has declined to comment to The Associated Press on the filings.
UMG told the AP in a statement that 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.”
The newest filing claims UMG “could have refused to release the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” but “chose to do the opposite.”
Lamar’s Not Like Us, released on May 4, is a diss track against Drake, one of several that the rappers exchanged earlier this year. In it, he questions the Canadian rapper’s authenticity and claims he is a sexual predator. It was seen as the breakout hit of the feud, and debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.
In addition to calling Drake a “certified pedophile,” Lamar says in the song: “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young, You better not ever go to Cell Block 1.”
Payola allegations
In the first legal action, Drake’s lawyers claimed that UMG “conspired with and paid currently unknown parties” to “artificially” boost the prominence of Not Like Us through bots and undisclosed “pay-to-play” schemes.
The filings claim that an individual alleged on a popular podcast that UMG paid him to use bots to achieve 30 million streams on Spotify when Not Like Us was released.
The song has more than 900 million streams on Spotify.
“There could be intervention by bots to pump up the streams,” said Catherine Moore, an adjunct professor of music at the University of Toronto who specializes in the music industry and distribution. She points to small-scale examples of this, “where someone’s fans or friends just play [a song] over and over,” something she refers to as “human automation.”
The filing also claims UMG made undisclosed payments to an independent radio promoter who agreed to transfer those payments to certain radio stations as compensation to play Not Like Us.
The lack of disclosure, if it did happen, is key, according to Sullivan. It’s an illegal practice called payola.
“It’s deliberately purchasing popularity,” said Moore.
The allegations go beyond Spotify streams. Drake’s lawyers reference online reports that fans who asked Apple’s voice assistant Siri to play Drake’s album Certified Lover Boy claim they were instead delivered Not Like Us.
Sullivan said targeted and specific allegations, like the claims about Siri, are more likely to be granted discovery by the court, which could then move to a formal complaint.
The filings could also open the door for transparency around algorithms if further legal action is pursued, according to Moore, including how a streaming service like Spotify determines what music people are recommended.
“It could prove really valuable for artists.”
A ‘form of infiltration’
Beyond the legal implications, one expert believes these filings will have a significant cultural fallout.
“This type of lawsuit has never occurred in the genre of hip-hop or rap,” said A.R. Shaw, an author and the executive editor of Atlanta Daily World.
Shaw, who has written about the legal filings, said that traditionally, rap “polices itself.”
He pointed to what he describes as “watershed moments” like previous beefs, between rappers Tupac and Biggie or Jay-Z and Nas, as examples of this.
“Rap beef is like a sport,” he said. “They engage in verbal dialogue, and after the dialogue is over, the audience, they usually announce the winner.”
But for Shaw, this time is different. He says it’s “almost making a mockery of the culture,” as taking legal action goes against unwritten rules that others play by.
How does beefing with Drake benefit other artists? As it turns out, a lot. After Kendrick Lamar took shots at Drake and J. Cole, we decided to take a look at the numbers behind the beef.
Regardless of where the legal filings go, the damage could be done for a lot of Drake fans, he said.
“I think a lot of fans right now, they’re confused. I think they’re probably disappointed.”
Shaw said Drake’s actions “almost feels like a form of infiltration.”
“It’s something that no artist would think of doing on this level…. He’s proven Kendrick’s right to an extent that no, he’s not like us. No, he’s not like hip-hop culture.”
