In "Family Matters," the penultimate diss track from Drake's contentious rivalry with Kendrick Lamar, the Toronto rapper levels harsh accusations against his West Coast foil, alleging abuse towards his spouse and questioning his parentage of his own son. Drake croons, "When you lay hands on your lady, is it self-defense 'cause she towers over you?" He further claims, "They deployed a crisis management squad to scrub the truth—that you laid a hand on your queen."
On Monday, Universal Music Group (UMG) sought to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by Drake, highlighting these accusations as examples of the personal, vituperative claims common in diss tracks that listeners typically dismiss as mere bravado. Context, UMG argues, is crucial, maintaining that "Not Like Us" employs exaggeration and opinionated rhetoric in a manner too fantastical to be construed as defamatory.
UMG asserts that Drake "suffered defeat in a rap battle he instigated and eagerly engaged in." They continue, "Rather than accepting his loss with the nonchalance of a seasoned rapper he often portrays himself as, he has filed suit against his own label in a misguided bid to soothe his bruised ego." Notably, Lamar (signed to Interscope Records) and Drake (of Republic Records) are both represented by divisions under the UMG umbrella.
This rap beef spilled over into the courtroom earlier this year when Drake accused UMG, which holds exclusive licensing rights to "Not Like Us," of spreading defamatory rumors portraying him as a pedophile through clandestine payments and reduced licensing fees to third parties. His claim alleges this was part of a scheme to devalue his music and brand amidst contractual negotiations.
The complaint maps out the timeline of their feud, which began with Drake and J. Cole's 2023 collaboration "First Person Shooter," where they proclaimed themselves the "big three" alongside Lamar. Lamar, in "Like That," rejected this equivalence. Subsequent diss tracks saw the rappers exchange increasingly venomous insults, covering allegations of domestic violence, exploitation, and pedophilia, culminating in Lamar's triumphant West Coast anthem in May, earning him the title of battle victor from onlookers.
Citing the tone of "Not Like Us," UMG contends that the track is replete with "epithets, fiery rhetoric, and hyperbolic statements" that are staples of rap music. The exaggerated visuals in the music video, the company adds, further reinforce the track's non-factual intent. For instance, the video opens with Lamar whispering to a clown about seeing "dead people," a nod to The Sixth Sense, subtly implying his victory over Drake.
By examining the broader context of their feud, UMG clarifies that "Not Like Us" refers to well-documented controversies that Drake himself acknowledged and perpetuated. Notably, Drake invited Lamar to address accusations about his alleged attraction to underage girls, stemming from a controversy involving actress Millie Bobby Brown when she was a minor, which Drake addressed in "The Heart Part 6."
UMG draws parallels between accusations in diss tracks and statements in a letter to the editor, often not deemed defamatory because such platforms are understood to serve as forums for personal opinions. They reference a 1995 court case where an individual's defamation suit against The New York Times for an opinion piece was dismissed. The court ruled that the "immediate and broader social context" in which a statement is made determines whether it conveys opinion or fact.
More recently, a federal judge aligned with Barstool Sports, ruling that the outlet hadn't defamed Michael Rapaport across a spate of tweets, videos, and blog posts that accused the actor of racism, stalking his ex-girlfriend, and harboring herpes. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald decreed that the contentious assertions in question failed to constitute "actionable statements of fact," as they were published amidst a fiery dispute where the audience was well-aware they were hearing opinionated remarks.
Furthermore, UMG invoked the standard for defamation protection, asserting that any purportedly defamatory statements were made either with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard for their truth. In matters involving fictional works, parodies, and satires, the courts acknowledge that scrutiny must pivot on the publisher's intended message, according to the company. Rollin Ransom, a lawyer for UMG, penned in the court filing, "There's no foundation for claiming that any individual at UMG harbored the subjective intent to disseminate false factual statements about Drake; UMG unleashed a rap diss track, brimming with fiery rhetoric and insults—hardly factual assessments, let alone false ones." The label echoed the same conduct in distributing "Family Matters," wherein Drake leveled accusations of domestic abuse against Lamar and denied paternity of Lamar's son.
Within days of Lamar's release of what transpired as the penultimate song in their rap beef, Drake's security guard was shot outside his Toronto abode. Drake contended that Lamar issued a "call to violence" against him, constituting harassment.
In its endeavor to dismiss the case, UMG presented multiple legal arguments, including the assertion that Drake couldn't file a civil claim for an alleged violation of a criminal statute. Nevertheless, it maintained that the exaggerated and metaphorical language Drake took issue with was par for the course in diss tracks.
One of the cornerstones of Drake's lawsuit was his conviction that UMG aimed to "devalue" his music and brand to gain leverage in negotiations. He alleged that the company surreptitiously compensated third parties to play, stream, and promote "Not Like Us," citing an anonymous individual who revealed on a Twitch stream that Interscope, Lamar's label, utilized bots to achieve 30 million streams on Spotify within the initial days post-release. In countering this, UMG stated that Drake hadn't adequately substantiated his arguments that it indulged in a pay-for-play scheme.
Michael Gottlieb, Drake's lawyer, issued a statement asserting that UMG "seeks to portray this as a mere rap beef to divert the attention of its shareholders, artists, and the public from an undeniable truth: a greedy company is finally being held accountable for capitalizing on perilous misinformation that has already sparked multiple violent acts." Earlier this month, the court denied UMG's motion to halt discovery in the case, a ruling issued a day after Drake sought permission from a Texas state court to depose a company representative and obtain specific documents pertaining to whether the label merely facilitated the promotion of the track or actively conspired to promote it by covertly compensating radio stations.
