Universal Music Group wants a federal judge to dismiss Drake’s updated defamation lawsuit that complained about Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime performance of “Not Like Us,” arguing he’s just upset about a “rap artist who defeated him.”
Weeks after Drake filed an amended version of his case that claimed the halftime show was intended to “assassinate the character of another artist,” UMG fired back Wednesday – arguing that the new claims about the Super Bowl are as legally faulty as the rest of the case.
“Drake’s new allegations are astonishing,” the music giant’s lawyer Rollin Ransom writes. “As Drake concedes, Lamar’s Super Bowl performance did not include the lyric that Drake or his associates are ‘certified pedophiles’ (i.e., the alleged ‘Defamatory Material’ that is at the heart of this case).”
“The focus of Drake’s new claims — that ‘the largest audience for a Super Bowl halftime show ever’ did not hear Lamar call Drake or his crew pedophiles — betrays this case for what it is: Drake’s attack on the commercial and creative success of the rap artist who defeated him, rather than the content of Lamar’s lyrics,” Ransom added.
Lamar released “Not Like Us” last May amid a high-profile beef with Drake that saw the two UMG stars release a series of bruising diss tracks. The song, a knockout punch that blasted Drake as a “certified pedophile” over an infectious beat, became a chart-topping hit in its own right and won five Grammy Awards, including record and song of the year.
In January, Drake took the unusual step of suing UMG over the song, claiming his own label had defamed him by boosting the track’s popularity. The lawsuit, which doesn’t name Lamar himself as a defendant, alleges that UMG “waged a campaign” against its own artist to spread a “malicious narrative” about pedophilia that it knew to be false.
UMG believes the case is clearly meritless – that “hyperbolic insults” and “vitriolic allegations” are par for the course in diss tracks and cannot form the basis for a libel lawsuit. The company has pointedly noted that Drake himself was happy to make such attacks, including accusing Lamar of domestic abuse, until he lost the battle.
During the halftime show, which took place weeks after Drake filed his case, Lamar omitted the word “pedophile.” But after much speculation over whether he’d play the song at all, Kendrick really didn’t hold back otherwise – making it the centerpiece of the set and clearly rapping similar lyrics, including: “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young.”
In his amended complaint last month, Drake’s attorneys argued that the decision to censor the word “pedophile” during the broadcast failed to avoid the song’s defamatory meaning – and instead had underscored the rapper’s legal case against UMG.
“Kendrick Lamar would not have been permitted to perform during the Super Bowl Performance unless the word ‘pedophile’… was omitted from the lyrics — that is because nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory to falsely brand someone a ‘certified pedophile’,” wrote Drake’s attorney Michael Gottlieb.
But in Wednesday’s motion to dismiss the case, UMG argued that Drake’s censorship argument was logically flawed.
“Drake contends that the decision not to include the word ‘pedophiles’ … could only reflect that the language is defamatory,” UMG’s lawyers write. “But this ignores any number of other explanations for the decision — such as threats by Drake of additional meritless litigation.”
Wednesday’s motion also highlighted that Drake had “removed obviously false factual allegations” from his original complaint, including that UMG directly paid for bots to boost streams of Kendrick’s track: “Drake is now reduced to citing a different podcast host who claimed that ‘Kendrick used bots’ [and] a now-deleted anonymous X comment accusing Lamar of ‘buying promo.’”
Drake’s lawyers will have a chance to respond to the motion to dismiss in the weeks ahead, and the judge will issue a ruling at some point in the next few months.
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, a spokesman for UMG underscored the arguments in the motion to dismiss: “Nowhere in the hundred-plus page ‘legal’ blather written by Drake’s lawyers do they bother to acknowledge that Drake himself has written and performed massively successful songs containing equally provocative taunts against other artists. Nor do they mention that it was Drake who started this particular exchange.”
In the same statement, UMG said Drake’s lawyers were chasing “wild conspiracies” about “why one song that upset Drake had massive global appeal,” when in reality the company was “working tirelessly” to promote all of its artists.
“Our continuing partnership with Drake and his enduring success is a shining example,” the company said in the statement. “Despite his lawyers’ attempts to silence other artists and threaten the companies that work with them, we remain committed to propelling Drake’s career while maintaining our unwavering support of all our artists’ creative expression. Drake’s included.”
