Drake v UMG: Why the Not Like Us Lawsuit Isn't Over

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30Every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're helping communities you care about, too. Amplify your everyday. Go to thrivecosmetics.com slash shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20 % off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics, C-A-U-S-E-M-E-T-I-C-S dot com slash shine26. Memorial Day means serious savings at Mattress Warehouse. Save up to$1 ,500 warehouse wide. Tempur-Pedic and Sealy adjustable sets are now up to$500 off. or get a king purple mattress for the price of a queen. Plus free next day delivery and setup. And our exclusive lifetime price guarantee locks in your best price forever.

1:08Don't miss it. Shop top brand mattresses, bedding and sleep essentials at Mattress Warehouse. Your destination for the sleep you deserve. Shop the Memorial Day mattress sales for your best night's sleep today. Only at Mattress Warehouse.

1:23Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me and Ishka Matanda Daughty. Now stop what you're doing right now. Open up YouTube on your phone, your laptop, your smart fridge, type in Fame Under Fire and subscribe to our YouTube channel. The Fuffniverse or Fuffniverse, depending how you say it, has expanded. We have extra eps on there, some behind the scenes, and we like reading your questions, which you can put in the comments. And when Sean comes to the UK in July, I'm going to strap a GoPro to his head and watch him walk around the shops in Mayfair and see how much damage he gets done.

1:55Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:But today we're going to be talking about Drake. He's dropped three albums, you know that. But peppered throughout those tracks are references to his relationship with his current label, Universal Music Group. Potentially former label. We're waiting for him to announce whether he's moved on. On tracks like Bees on the Table, he says things like, I'm suing the man, not the rapper. That's in reference to his lawsuit against Universal Music Group. And on Make Them Remember, he says he's something like the golden goose shaking things up at Lucian's house. That's a reference to Lucian Grange, the CEO of UMG.

2:25Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:Now, like I said, Drake has been actively suing Universal Music Group since January 2025 for their promotion of the diss track Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar. A lot of people saw the headlines that the judge had dismissed that lawsuit and thought that this was over. It was the end of the road for Drake's legal battle. That's not true. It's actually still fighting its way through the Second Circuit Appeals Court. And there are a lot more people involved in it now. Now, this is a legal battle about rap in the courtroom, art on trial and our favorite thing, the First Amendment. So it's only right that we have a constitution nerd joining me.

3:00Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:He's been in Aiken somewhere or wherever that is. He's been in Aiken somewhere. It's Sean Kent, Dr. Sean Kent. Hey, Anushka, how are you doing? I'm good. How is Aiken? I need you to never do that Southern accent again. If anyone's seen the film Beautiful Creatures, it's set in Aiken. That's why I know it. Yes, but that might be as bad as my British accent. I'm an aching mama. Nobody gets out of aching mama. I got nothing. I got nothing. And when I apply for citizenship, this is what they'll play. So for those of you who aren't aware, don't know, somehow missed the Drake legal battle with UMG, we're going to speed through that.

3:36Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:If you're with us on YouTube, you can actually jump to the section on Amicus Briefs for the latest update. But we're going to get into some things. Sean, can you just remind us why Drake or Brie Drake Graham is suing Universal Music Group? Aubrey, of course, everybody remembers the famous song, Not Like Us, that came out that Kendrick released. Drake was very offended, if you will, that the song depicted him as a pedophile. And so he was so upset with this. But really, behind the scenes, what he was actually saying, according to the lawsuit, is that his record label was artificially inflating the numbers of Kendrick.

4:14and by artificially inflating the numbers of Kendrick, he artificially made this song a bigger hit than it was, taking it to a wider audience than it should have been. And then what it was doing is some of the lyrics in there were so offensive, according to him, it caused him a level of unspecified damages, one with his label, two with Worldwide. And so he had such a problem with this that he said, I'm going to file a suit. Now, he did not file the suit against the person who actually said the lines. He did not file it against Kendrick. He filed it against his record label almost as a tacit co-conspirator that they were down with the obscene and awful things that were said about him.

4:55So he went after his record label that said that you guys had a systematic way of trying to ruin my career.

5:01Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:It was interesting because, like you say, a lot of people he assumed he'd sued Kendrick Lamar. But Universal Music Group was actually his label as well. But he spoke about some of those practices like whitelisting, so removing the restrictions on a particular track so streamers can play it in full. And he claimed that this was some of what UMG were doing to bolster the streams on Not Like Us. I mean, Not Like Us, it was everywhere. It really was everywhere. I mean, he was performing it at shows like six, seven times back to back. Now, in response to claims that Universal had deliberately harmed Drake's career, The label noted it had invested massively in his music, helping him achieve historic commercial and personal and financial success, which he has.

5:39Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:And I just want to get into one thing here. It was defamation per se, not just your regular old defamation. Sean, can you just flesh out what the difference is? And defamation, of course, as everybody understands, defamation is basically you can't talk trash about somebody else. But in the world, there is a healthy level of trash talking. Now, when you go to trial and you accuse somebody of defamation, usually you have to prove that the comment that they made was defamatory. Some of the stuff that Anushka says about me and her elder abuse towards me could be seen as defamatory. However, I would have to go to a court and prove that the things that she has said against me are defamatory.

6:20And somebody was like, no, she's just joking. It's not defamatory. We'll throw your case out. Now, there's certain actions under the law that if you say them just by saying them, just by uttering them, the court says that is what's called defamation per se. It is defamatory on its face. If you do something that directly affects somebody's job and career, like, you know, some of these Google review people who talk about somebody's business, if you directly affect their business. And in this situation, if you accuse somebody of committing a crime in that situation, Drake is saying Kendrick accused him of being a pedophile.

6:56And for anybody uninitiated out there, that's a crime. And so the court says if you accuse somebody of this by itself in and of itself, it is defamation per se, which means you don't have to prove it. And damages are presumed and you just have to prove how damaged you are.

7:12Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:And he goes into some other things in his original complaint. He includes screenshots of people online showing that the general public believed that he was a pedophile, believed that he had committed abuse against minors. So there's comments like, quote, I love this song. We would never have known that Drake is a whole pedophile if this information wasn't exposed, which obviously Drake denies. But he's therefore showing like actual damages. People genuinely believe this. And he also goes into something else, which is motive. And I don't think you actually need motive in a defamation case, do you?

7:43You don't. You don't need motive in any case. realistically in the United States, but if you're on a jury, everybody wants to know the why. So all lawyers realize you try to prove the why, you just don't need it.

7:53Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:So he basically says, quote, the leadership of Interscope, that's the record label owned by UMG, had every incentive to prove it could maximize Kendrick Lamar's sales after only recently persuading him to enter into his own direct license for a limited recording commitment of new music. They'd gone into new business with Kendrick, whereas it continues, quote, UMG's contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment and on information and belief umg anticipated that extending drake's contract would be costly by devaluing drake's music and brand umg would gain leverage to force drake to sign a new deal on terms more favorable to umg so this was the basis of his complaint he's got his cognizable damages he's got his people genuinely believe this he's included motive there if this went to a jury trial but this was actually dismissed in october 2025 by a judge but not dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can be raised again if it's dismissed with prejudice.

8:43Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:It's gone for good. You got it. Why did the judge dismiss this? There's a federal rule 12b6, which allows the judge to dismiss a complaint, the lawsuit on its face and say, there's nothing there. There's no issues that we have to discuss. And so when the judge read the complaint and listened back to both parties, made the decision to dismiss. One of the things that sometimes this is a 38 page opinion, and we always talk about the fact, how do you get to the opinion to determine what the judge is going to do? But when you read like the first paragraph, the penultimate song of this feud, Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar, dealt the metaphorical killing blow.

9:23When you read a judge say that, you kind of know where this opinion is going to come on. And then the next line, the song contains a lyric explicitly accusing Drake of being a pedophile, set to a catchy beat and a propulsive baseline. What? That is literally from the judge's opinion. The judge is like, you're going to get all of my opinions. Yeah, and I feel like, you know, and then the next line on this one paragraph, not like us went on to be a cultural sensation, achieving immense commercial success and critical acclaim. If I'm Drake and this opinion got released and I read the first paragraph, I just slide it over.

10:01I'm like, I think I know how this movie ends. But long and short, What the court ended up saying is they went to the first name. They started talking about defamation and they said, nah, brah, this is not defamation. You have invited this, if you will. This is satirical at best. And 38 pages of literally what they're talking about. They're talking about nothing. What they're talking about. They're talking about nothing. What they're talking about. They're talking about nothing. 38 pages of that is the opinion of what we just read of the court saying there's just nothing here and we don't need to get to the discovery statute.

10:35We don't need to get to any of this part. We're done.

10:38Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:So Drake's original civil complaint has been dismissed, but he has taken the decision to appeal that. So the judge says it's non-actionable opinion. What does that mean? I mean, literally the answer is in your definition. It's non-actual opinion. It is literally like you and I talking right now. It is not defamation. It is rap lyrics. It's him just offering his opinion. It's him just talking trash and it does not get to the level that this should be quantified and talked about as if it's defamation. These are literally a genre that allows people to exhibit free speech. And because you have known it, because you have invited it, and one of the arguments in the appeal that Drake's team is making, and I'm glad you brought this up, is Drake's team is saying throughout the opinion, if you read it, the judge Harkins talks about other songs and other rap songs and how they have created this beef and how there's other references and things of pedophilia and some type of other song.

11:34Drake's team is saying, look, you ruled on this via 12B6 on the complaint, which is the four corners of the document. It is not fair that you have made this ruling taking other things out that we didn't get to argue. Remember, Anishka had a summary judgment station. They both get to argue and talk about the fact they did all the discovery. At a 12B6, the judge said, I've ruled on the complaint. Their problem is the judge ruled on the complaint, but talked about stuff outside of the complaint that Drake's team did not get to argue that they thought was patently unfair. But the court said, look, this is a rat beef.

12:08This is Drake. You invited it, if you will, in some points of this. So they said it is literally non-actionable opinion because it's going back and forth and you should not be able to benefit from that with which you caused.

12:22Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:That was the slight addition to the previous episode we'd done on that. And all the parties were present. UMG being the defendant, Drake being the claimant, Kendrick's in the ether somewhere watching, probably laughing. We've got the judge. But then came a bunch of other people. And I'd never seen this happen before because I remember I called you and I was like, who the heck is filing? Sean, explain to me amicus briefs. It is a Latin phase, amicus curi, which literally translates to friends of the court is what that means. And amicus brief is basically the nosy neighbor who has nothing to do with anything.

13:00I was just like, I won't be a part of this. And just like peeking is like, what are y 'all talking about? But what ends up happening is somebody is watching this case. And I'm not saying this is what happened in this situation. But somebody is watching this case and said the decision that is going to come out of this case is going to have such far reaching effects on other people. We want to petition the court so we can be heard, because remember, we talk about precedent. And once a court sets out a precedent or a law, it is a controlling law for everybody potentially in a situation. And so some other folks are out there saying we think this is bad.

13:36So there was two amicus briefs filed, one out in California, a group of lawyers, a group of experts, a group of rap folks. And when you read the opinion, it's their amicus. I always picture that they're doing it in some type of an auction like this and saying, you know, rap music affects everybody. And according to us, we feel that this is completely unfair. It's a bunch of legal rap scholars. And that's what I said. Amici are a nationally recognized experts on the use of rap lyrics in court.

14:05Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:Okay, if you ever hear Sean go silent or he goes off mic, it's because he's giving a full performance here. And you don't even know that if you subscribe to our YouTube channel, Sean, tell him to subscribe. The facial expressions are everything. Sean, tell him to subscribe to the channel. Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe. Period. Period. So what these amicus folks are, are literally, they come in and they have to get permission, okay? They can't just, like you talked about the fact initially, you're just going to write an amicus brief. No, you can't. Anushka has a problem with this. No, they go to the court.

14:39Damn straight. They go to the court and they say, we have a vested interest in this. And so let me give an example of why this is important. And it does make sense. And something no one is talking about. The amicus brief are experts. They are individuals who are trying to protect the Constitution. So let's say for argument's sake, the judge ruled that, you know what, Drake, those lyrics are awful. He should not be able to use those against you. Those are true. These are bad. Well, let's talk about some of the far-reaching effects. Let's say the prosecutor then, and back up, let's say that the judge says, we believe the things that he said are true and the world thinks they are true, and this is awful.

15:21Well, what are the far-reaching effects? Let's go to a case we've talked about before, David. So the prosecutors and David will say, well, that judge in New York, the federal district has ruled that when you wrap stuff, it is true. It should be allowed to be unifilized. romantic homicide, the case by the song by David. You know what? We're allowed to use rap lyrics against everybody. That is true. It's allowed to be utilized against him. And so that's why this group has gotten involved because they're like, look, your decision is going to have bigger effects just been on Aubrey. They're going to have effects on anybody out there.

15:55It's going to have a chilling effect on anybody who is engaged in the rap music genre. Then when you couple that with the amicus failed by the Yale case, one of the more interesting lines from that case, Anushka, that I thought was fascinating, they compare the battle between Drake and Kendrick to a literal fight. And they say the two individual, and they talk about the word consent. And they said the two individuals got into a consensual fight, a mutual combat, if you will, and one got beat up and now he's complaining about it. And it's so simple, but that's what they're saying is like, you can't do this.

16:34Consent should have been argued by UMG and they did not argue that. And we want the court to consider that this is a consensual, stupid relationship.

16:44Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:It's like challenging someone for, I'm going to say fisticuffs, but I feel like you're - Fisticuffs. You're exactly right. That's the language. Fisticuffs and then suing them for battery. Okay, so you've got these amicus briefs. You've just outlined the argument of consent, which is in one. There's another one that was penned by Jack Lerner. He's a professor at the University of California with the assistance of multiple scholars. And there's some interesting points. It says, when courts ignore rap music's history and artistic conventions, the effect is to deny rap the status of art and instead to flatten the lyrics into literal confessions or statements of specific intent.

17:16Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:Rap is an extension of the black American tradition of oral storytelling and signifying a technique that incorporates exaggeration metaphor and wordplay. And there's a whole argument that they make off the back of this about racial bias and what happens if you allow particularly rap lyrics into the courtroom. And then they also say, which is very interesting, stage names and public personas are big in the rap industry. They're a defining feature of the genre. Rap artists routinely create fictional characters under which they perform. Marshall Mathers performs as Eminem. Jeffrey Williams performs as Young Thug.

17:52Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:And I want to talk to you about Young Thug because your friend, Brian Steele, represented him. You guys might remember Brian Steele from the Diddy trial. He came in late, but he was on Diddy's defense team. And he is in a weird full circle moment. Also, Drake wrote a song about him. Where's your song? Right? Right? Somebody else. Right? I want a song. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Get on that. I think I want like Barry Manilow singing the hook. Is that weird? Luther Vandross, that Kentucky fried chicken. Well played. But you say, we talked about this before, the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects certain rights.

18:33Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:And part of that is art, artistic expression that is protected by the First Amendment. You're looking at me like I'm getting this wrong. No, I'm very excited where this is going. and you see I've got a little grinch smile on my face. Okay, so in this amicus brief, they're saying if you flatten rap and you remove its status as art, you take the lyrics as factual allegations, you deny its place in the history of its musical conventions, right? Yeah. But your friend Brian very famously said in his opening statement for Young Thug, in the Young Thug trial, Young Thug was spent more than 900 days in custody after being arrested in 2022 on racketeering and gang-related charges, but he was later released after pleading guilty to gang drug and gun charges.

19:16Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty:But Brian Steele says during the opening statements that thug means truly humbled under God. And that's what the name meant to Young Thug. But that was the argument that was made. Creative lawyering goes a long way in courtrooms sometimes. But what about, so if he's opened that door to say that, well, actually Young Thug's not a thug because thug means truly humbled under God. I would have been very careful about that because that would have opened. And you got to love your legal analysis. You're exactly right. Something of that, if you're not careful, could completely open the door to put any.

19:49But you could have put anybody else on the stand at that point in time to say what young thug actually means. That is gold star for Marcus. That is a absolutely wonderful bit of legal analysis. And what you have to be careful with this in this game. I mean, I I love what the amicus briefs were saying. we tend to forget that a lot of these guys in the rap game are pure, unadulterated exaggerators. And so if we're not careful in saying that everything that they say is truth, then you're going to start requiring them to put everything in their truth. A notoriously perfect example is 50 Cent. You know, when he sings a lot of his song, 50 don't drink, 50 don't do drugs.

20:31But if you look at most of his songs early in his career, he said, yeah, I just put that in there because I thought that what people want to hear because I just want to make money. And that's what a lot of them are doing. And a lot of them are talking about fighting and killing and so forth. It's an exaggerated form of expression. And if we start creating, and that's what these amicus priests are saying. This is a form of expression. This is a form of exaggeration at some point in time. It should never be forced to be a form of everything you say is the truth. And it should never be dear diary.

21:01This is how I readily expressly feel.