In a recent filing, Universal Music Group urged United States District Court Judge Jeanette Vargas to dismiss Drake's defamation lawsuit based on the lyrics of Kendrick Lamar's 2024 Grammy-winning Record and Song of the Year, Not Like Us.
In case you missed my first post, Drake sued UMG (the label that represents both Kendrick Lamar and Drake) for defamation for its part in the publication and promotion of Kendrick Lamar's viral sensation Not Like Us (in which Kendrick calls Drake, among other things, a “certified pedophile.”)
In its opening brief, UMG begins by quoting Drake's own lyrics back at him: “Diss me, you'll never hear a reply for it.” – Successful, 2009. According to UMG, Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated." He then chose to bring claims against his own label aimed at chilling legitimate artistic expression “[i]nstead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be.”
But how does that argument fair in the context of defamation law? UMG's argument in support of dismissal is two-fold:
First, UMG says the Not Like Us lyrics are nonactionable statements of opinion.
A statement can be defamatory only if it conveys a fact. In contrast, a statement of opinion is inactionable, protected speech. To determine whether a statement is actionable, courts analyze the statement context and ask whether a reasonable listener would understand the statement to be conveying a fact and not just somebody's opinion.
According to UMG, Lamar's heated, hyperbolic tone of voice signals to listeners that the lyrics of Not Like Us are Lamar's artistic expression of his own opinions, not factual statements about Drake. And the broader context—a heated rap battle—matters too: UMG says listeners are conditioned to anticipate the use of fiery rhetoric by rappers is diss tracks and accordingly already know that the insults rappers hurl back and forth are not based on cold, hard facts.
Second, UMG says Drake does not (and cannot) plead “actual malice.”
A public figure can prevail on a defamation claim only if the statement at issue is made with “actual malice” which means with knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard to the truth.
UMG argues that when, like here, the statements at issue are made in of works of fiction, parody, or satire, the “actual malice” inquiry asks what the publisher subjectively intended to convey to the audience. Here, UMG says it could not have published the lyrics of Not Like Us with the intent to convey to the audience any untrue facts about Drake because (for the reasons discussed above) it did not intend to convey any facts whatsoever.
UMG makes a good point: the label had the same intent (or lack of intent) when it published Drake's diss tracks about Kendrick, including Family Matters, in which Drake arguably accuses Kendrick of domestic abuse, and suggests that Kendrick is not his son's biological father. There, like here, UMG says it did not intend to convey to listeners anyfactualinformation.
Side note: in a separate application, UMG asked the District Court to stay discovery pending a decision on its motion to dismiss Drake's complaint, which would allow UMG to avoid (for the time being) turning over sensitive documents including its contracts and communications with Kendrick. The Court denied UMG's application for a stay and scheduled oral argument on UMG's motion to dismiss for June 30.
Will the court dismiss the case on the pleadings, or will it let Drake proceed to discovery to try to prove his claims? Follow this space for updates as the saga continues to unfold.
UMG tells the Court Drake "lost a rap battle that he provoked."
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
