After taking a major L in his battle against Kendrick Lamar, Drake decided to turn his anger against his own label, UMG. He filed an 81-page defamation and harassment lawsuit against the label in January, claiming that Universal Music Group helped run a campaign for “Not Like Us” to become a viral hit.
The two have since been going back and forth for months, with Drizzy’s team recently pushing back against UMG’s moves to have their April 2nd pretrial meeting rescheduled due to more harm being done to his reputation in the meantime (cough cough, Lamar’s Super Bowl performance). Now though, UMG has had enough — and they want this legal battle to be over with.
UMG is dragging Drake (again)
The lawyers for UMG filed a formal motion on March 17 asking the courts to dismiss the defamation case. Starting with lyrics from Champagne Papi’s 2009 song “Successful,” (“Yeah, I want it all, that’s why I strive for it/Diss me, you’ll never hear a reply for it.”) the mega music company decided to go nuclear.
“Plaintiff [Drake], one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated. 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 document states.
However, it wasn’t all completely negative. UMG did write that Drake is “a prolific rap feud combatant, having traded diss tracks with a number of artists, including Pusha T and Meek Mill.”
Nevertheless, they state that the rapper is still in the wrong (and should just take the L). They are arguing that Drizzy “had no concerns using UMG’s platform to publish slurs about Lamar during their rap feud, now claims that ‘Not Like Us’ is defamatory … Drake fails to state a claim for defamation because ‘Not Like Us’ conveys nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, not fact, and because Drake cannot adequately allege that UMG acted with actual malice.”
Drake’s lead attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb, quickly hit back with a statement defending his client. “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.”
“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.”
Despite the effort from Drake’s lawyers, public opinion seems to be siding with UMG on this one.
