Common Music Group has issued an announcement in response to Drake suing the music big for defamation.
“Not solely are these claims unfaithful, however the notion that we might search to hurt the status of any artist — not to mention Drake — is illogical,” UMG mentioned in an announcement to Selection. “We’ve got invested massively in his music and our staff around the globe have labored tirelessly for a few years to assist him obtain historic industrial and private monetary success.
“All through his profession, Drake has deliberately and efficiently used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to interact in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to specific his emotions about different artists. He now seeks to weaponize the authorized course of to silence an artist’s artistic expression and to hunt damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.
“We’ve got not and don’t have interaction in defamation — in opposition to any particular person. On the identical time, we are going to vigorously defend this litigation to guard our folks and our status, in addition to any artist who would possibly immediately or not directly grow to be a frivolous litigation goal for having finished nothing extra that write a tune.”
The case was filed in New York Metropolis federal courtroom Wednesday morning (Jan. 15), accusing UMG of spreading “false and malicious narrative.”
In keeping with TMZ Hip-Hop, the go well with addresses Common releasing and selling Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” The go well with claims the label was nicely conscious of Lamar’s lyrics, photographs within the music video, and the way allegations of Drake being a pedophile had been each false and harmful.
The lawsuit referred to as “Not Like Us” a “gold mine” for the label, constructed on “inflammatory and surprising allegations.” However why? Drake believes that UMG operated in opposition to his model to affect future contract negotiations.
The go well with doubles down in bot utilization, stating the corporate used bot receipts to extend the streams by not less than 30 million. Moreover, the go well with accuses UMG of collaborating in “pay for play” with a radio promotion firm. The go well with states UMG referred to as the tune a “chart-topper,” however the information behind it was fraudulent.
Drake additionally highlights the upcoming Tremendous Bowl efficiency, stating the label helped Lamar get the job to diss him at “some of the vital (and seen) cultural occasions of the 12 months.”
However what about Kendrick particularly? The lawsuit highlights: “This lawsuit is just not in regards to the artist who created ‘Not Like Us.’ It’s, as a substitute, totally about UMG, the music firm that determined to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize.”
Drake said the tune put him at risk, highlighting shootings exterior his Toronto dwelling.
Drake’s new lawsuit in opposition to UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”:
“It was simply three days after UMG initially revealed the Recording and Picture that Drake was focused at his Toronto home by armed intruders within the 2024 equal of ‘Pizzagate.'”https://t.co/EVhVle8tsx pic.twitter.com/fMwDvoWQLp
— Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) January 15, 2025
Earlier on the identical day, information broke about Drake ending one pursuit of authorized motion in opposition to Common Music Group and Spotify over allegedly amplifying Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” streams.
Salute to Bryson “Increase” Paul who picked the news of Drizzy’s Frozen Moments, LLC submitting a withdrawal order of petition with the New York Supreme Courtroom on Jan. 14. This concludes the present authorized chapter with no monetary obligations to both celebration.
There was no opposition to the withdrawal order kind Spotify. Common “reserved its place on the matter.”
The brand new authorized submitting reads:
“Please take discover that petitioner and movant Frozen Moments, LLC, by its attorneys Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, hereby withdraws its order to point out trigger searching for pre-action disclosure and preservation of sure paperwork and communications from respondent UMG Recordings, Inc. and pre-action disclosure of sure paperwork and communications from respondent Spotify USA Inc., with displays initially filed in New York Supreme Courtroom On November 25, 2024.”
Want some extra readability? Our buddy Brian at Audiomack supplied a little bit of context:
The discontinuance means the case won’t transfer ahead in courtroom as filed. The withdrawal suggests Frozen Moments (Drake) and UMG reached a non-public decision OR Drake’s authorized crew reassessed the authorized deserves of their petition. Spotify mainly mentioned, “That every one sounds good” lol https://t.co/6pFS9Dk3uE
— Z (@BrianZisook) January 15, 2025
It’s price noting Drake nonetheless has a submitting set for a Jan. 28 listening to in Texas in opposition to UMG and iHeartRadio.
Beforehand, Spotify responded to Drake’s authorized motion, accusing the streaming big and Common Music Group of amplifying Kendrick Lamar’s streams for “Not Like Us.”
In a authorized submitting, Drake said Spotify boosted the streams, to which they reply, calling the allegations “false” and calling the authorized motion a “subversion of the conventional judicial course of.”
Spotify says there isn’t a proof to assist Drake’s allegations of utilizing bots, and extra, it denies that there isn’t a deal to assist the only. “The predicate of Petitioner’s complete request for discovery from Spotify is fake,” Spotify’s authorized crew wrote, in accordance with Billboard. “Spotify and UMG have by no means had any such association.”
Moreover, Spotify was essential of Drake’s authorized motion, together with making a “pre-action” as a result of the accusations had been believed to be baseless and would have been rapidly dismissed.
“What petitioner is searching for to do right here … is to bypass the conventional pleading necessities … and acquire by means of pre-action discovery that which it might solely be entitled to hunt had been it to outlive a movement to dismiss,” Spotify’s legal professionals added. “This subversion of the conventional judicial course of must be rejected.”
