A shooting at Drake’s Toronto home, two attempted break-ins, and a child pulled out of school over safety concerns – these aren’t the typical outcomes of a hip hop feud. But according to an explosive defamation lawsuit filed yesterday, they’re the direct outcome of Universal Music choosing to release and promote Kendrick Lamar’s controversial diss track ‘Not Like Us’.
Universal “chose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists” when it approved and released the track, which “falsely accuses Drake of being a pedophile and calls for violent retribution against him”, the lawsuit alleges.
The defamation action is interesting for various reasons, not least because Drake is suing his own long-term record label, Universal having been involved in his recordings since the release of debut album ‘Thank Me Later’ all the way back in 2010.
When the major most recently extended its deal with Drake in 2022, CEO Lucian Grainge noted that the musician was one of the “biggest artists of today”, adding that Universal “couldn’t be more excited about what lies ahead”.
The lawsuit opens with a different quote from Grainge, though. Last year, when he was facing claims – ultimately retracted – the he had facilitated the alleged crimes of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, the Universal boss apparently said, “A single lie can destroy a reputation of integrity”, before adding “while it takes years to build a reputation, it can be ruined in five minutes”.
And yet, Drake claims, Universal was happy to publish and promote lies that would destroy his reputation.
That said, the reputational damage faced by Drake as a result of Lamar’s lyrics is only a part of the damage done, insists the lawsuit. Lamar’s portrayal of Drake as “a criminal pedophile”, and his suggestion that the public “should resort to vigilante justice in response”, has jeopardised the safety of both him and his family.
That threat to his safety appears all too real, with the lawsuit outlining incidents that occurred at Drake’s home following the track’s release, and revealing that the musician had such significant concerns about his family’s safety that he pulled his son out of elementary school.
When it comes to the actions of Universal, alleges Drake’s lawsuit, the label was not only profiting from the viral success of ‘Not Like Us’ in the weeks and months following its release. Releasing Lamar’s diss track was, says Drake, also a useful opportunity for the major label to damage his reputation.
His current deal with Universal is due to expire this year and the major knows he will drive a hard bargain as they seek to negotiate a new deal. Reputational damage inflicted on Drake, claims the lawsuit, means that his “bargaining leverage in advance of upcoming negotiations over contract renewal” would be reduced.
Needless to say, Universal strongly denies all the allegations made in Drake’s lawsuit, which also repeats previous claims that the major employed stream manipulation to bolster Lamar’s track.
“The notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist – let alone Drake – is illogical”, the music company says in an official response, noting its own commercial interests in the musician’s brand and catalogue.
That statement also seeks to portray Drake’s defamation action against a diss track as an attack on freedom of expression. “Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists”, it says.
“He now seeks to weaponise the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music”, it then adds.
The long running pop feud between Drake and Lamar first went legal last November, when Drake filed petitions with the courts in New York and Texas seeking data and documents from Universal, Spotify and iHeart in relation to allegations that the major had employed dubious marketing practices when promoting ‘Not Like Us’, including stream manipulation and payola.
The Texas filing also made mention of a possible claim for defamation. The New York petition was withdrawn shortly before the defamation suit was filed.
Seeking to hold anyone liable for defamation based on the lyrics of a diss track is certainly novel and seems somewhat ambitious. There is, of course, a long history of diss tracks in hip hop and, when labels get involved in releasing them, there’s an underlying assumption that no one will take any of the claims in the lyrics too seriously.
Although, in a world where social media fuelled conspiracy theories are gaining more traction than ever, occasionally prompting real world violence, should labels be considering whether or not that assumption is a safe one to make? Because, Drake’s lawsuit claims, the risks are all too real.
Upfront, the legal filing reports on a shooting targeting the musician’s Toronto home just days after the release of ‘Not Like Us’ in which a security guard was hospitalised. There were two separate attempts to break into Drake’s property the same week.
“In the two decades leading up to May 2024”, the lawsuit states, “nothing remotely like these events had ever happened”, despite Drake being constantly in the public eye. Therefore, it argues, these crimes were likely motivated by the release of Lamar’s track.
And since that release – and because of the scale of the marketing campaign Universal staged around it – the false allegations against Drake have continued to spread online, and even on posters displayed around the musician’s home city. “With the palpable physical threat to Drake’s safety and the bombardment of online harassment”, the lawsuit states, “Drake fears for the safety and security of himself, his family and his friends”.
“The violence and vitriol directed at Drake was foreseeable”, the lawsuit insists. And “UMG is legally responsible for the release, publication and promotion of the defamatory material, including the foreseeable consequences of the same”.
Yet, when Drake alerted the label to the impact its distribution of ‘Not Like Us’ was having, “UMG still chose money over the safety and well-being of its artists”, the lawsuit claims. And when he told the major he was considering going legal, “UMG responded that Drake would face humiliation if he brought
legal action … UMG’s posture, as the ‘world’s largest music company’, was that it is untouchable”.
Despite Universal’s quick bold response to Drake’s legal action, disputes of this kind are usually resolved out of court through confidential settlements.
However, if this case was to get to trial, it would spark a fascinating debate on the legal responsibilities of music companies releasing lyrics that potentially prompt a violent response from a small number of people. And even if a claim for defamation is a step too far, in ethical terms, are these things music companies should now be considering before getting involved in the commercialisation of rap beefs?