Context is everything in defamation disputes, Universal Music insists in its response to Drake’s lawsuit filed against the major – his own record company – over its role in releasing Kendrick Lamar’s diss track ‘Not Like Us’.
And in the context of Drake’s musical feud with Lamar – not to mention the wider artform that is the hip hop diss track – the lyrics of ‘Not Like Us’, while accusing Drake of being a pedophile, are simply not defamatory, the major argues.
“Like all of the recordings in the feud between Drake and Lamar” and “the many notorious diss tracks throughout rap’s history”, says Universal in its motion to dismiss Drake’s defamation lawsuit, ‘Not Like Us’ “consists of a series of hyperbolic insults”.
Which means, when “assessed in context, as it must be”, Lamar’s track “clearly conveys non-actionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole”. As a result, it concludes, the defamation claim should be dismissed.
Seeking to hold Universal liable for defamation over a diss track always seemed ambitious and the major’s legal arguments against that claim are pretty straightforward. Though it’s still fun to see Universal basically portray one of its most successful artists of this century as a thin-skinned hypocrite throwing a hissy fit because he lost a rap battle.
Then again, Drake did also accuse his record company of employing dodgy marketing tactics when promoting ‘Not Like Us’, allegations that are arguably more damaging for the major as it tries to position itself as a leader in the fight against streaming fraud. Those claims, Universal says, are “entirely bogus”.
When considering its motion to dismiss the defamation claim, Universal tells the judge overseeing the case, ‘Not Like Us’ should be viewed as one chapter in a wider rap battle in which Drake was a very willing participant. Over two months in spring 2024, the major explains, the two rappers “exchanged increasingly vitriolic and incendiary ‘diss tracks’, sometimes responding within hours of each other”.
And, it adds, “Drake encouraged the feud”. Backing up that claim, the major notes that, “when he felt that Lamar was taking too long to respond, Drake released a second recording in which he goaded Lamar to continue the public rap battle”. Lamar “did just that”, it adds, and “collectively Drake and Lamar released a total of nine tracks taking aim at each other”.
It’s not the fault of Lamar or Universal, the major then says, that “multiple commentators declared Lamar to be the ‘winner’ of the battle”. Nor that ‘Not Like Us’ proved so popular with critics and fans, winning the Grammy for Record Of The Year, and becoming sufficiently ubiquitous that Will Ferrell and Ana Gasteyer decided to parody the track at the recent ‘Saturday Night Live’ 50th anniversary show.
Honing in on the hypocrite angle, Universal says that Drake was always happy to “use UMG’s platform to promote tracks levelling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar, including, most significantly, that Lamar engaged in domestic abuse and that one of Lamar’s business partners and managers is the true father of Lamar’s son”.
But now, “after losing the rap battle”, Drake tells his lawyers to file a lawsuit claiming that ‘Not Like Us’ is defamatory. “It is not”, Universal insists.
And not only that, even claiming that the lyrics in a diss track can be defamatory is dangerous because of the impact it could have on freedom of expression. “Diss tracks are a popular and celebrated artform centered around outrageous insults”, Universal declares, adding, “they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed”.
The major then draws a parallel with the use of lyrics as evidence against rappers in criminal cases. That’s a practice the music industry has been campaigning against on the basis it is wrong for prosecutors and jurors to automatically assume rap lyrics, unlike lyrics in other genres, are more likely to be rooted in reality.
And do you know who has been a supporter of that campaign? You guessed it. “Drake himself signed a public petition criticising ‘the trend of prosecutors using artists’ creative expression against them’ by treating rap lyrics as literal fact”, Universal’s motion continues.
“As Drake recognised, when it comes to rap, ‘the final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination’”, it goes on. “Drake was right then and is wrong now. The complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar”.
Universal deals with the allegations of dodgy marketing tactics in the final section of its motion for dismissal. Drake alleges that Universal employed stream manipulation – and paid to boost radio airplay and influencer support – when marketing ‘Not Like Us’.
All of which is activity that likely violates US laws, and also damages the major’s reputation, especially as it pursues its own litigation against distributor and artist services company Believe which it accuses of facilitating streaming fraud.
But Drake’s allegations about dodgy marketing practices are, Universal insists, based on mere hearsay and acknowledged misunderstandings.
The stream manipulation claim stems from “anonymous” and “dubious” comments made on a Twitch stream, in which an individual initially claimed he was paid “by Kendrick Lamar’s label” to artificially boost the streams of ‘Not Like Us’. But he then clarified that he was actually approached by Lamar’s management.
When Universal pointed this out to Drake’s lawyers, it says, “Drake conceded the falsity” of the stream manipulation claim against the major and agreed to “withdraw and correct” that allegation. However, “despite this concession, Drake has refused to actually amend the complaint to withdraw the admittedly false allegation until after UMG files this motion to dismiss”.
As for the other payola claims, Drake’s lawsuit simply makes those allegations based on “information and belief”, without clarifying what that information might be.
Citing legal precedent, Universal says that information and belief allegations “must be accompanied by a statement of the facts upon which the belief is founded, and cannot rest on pure conjecture and speculation”. Therefore, it says, those allegations should be dismissed too.
The judge hearing this case previously knocked back a request from the major to pause discovery and postpone a pre-trial hearing. We now await to see if Universal’s motion for dismissal changes anything.