Universal Requests Texas Court to Dismiss Drake’s Petition Against Kendrick Lamar

Universal Music Group’s Response to Drake’s Petition

Universal Music Group (UMG) has requested that a Texas court dismiss Drake’s petition to compel the testimony of UMG representatives, following the rapper’s accusations that the music giant was involved in the “Payment for the Game” scheme alongside radio stations.

In November of the previous year, Drake petitioned the Bexar district court in Texas to collect testimony from UMG representatives as potential evidence for a trial. His legal team aims to determine whether UMG has financially compensated radio giant iHeartMedia in order to boost the visibility of Kendrick Lamar’s anti-Drake diss track, Not Like We.

Details of the Case and Legal Implications

UMG characterized Drake’s petition as an “obvious attempt at pressure” and requested the court to dismiss it under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), commonly referred to as the “Anti-SLAPP” law. The case is distinct from a defamation claim that Drake initiated against UMG in mid-January in a federal court in New York, which is also separate from a related petition filed by the rapper last year at the New York Supreme Court, just before the defamatory incident was noted.

The TCPA is designed to prevent lawsuits that are meant to intimidate or punish individuals exercising their First Amendment rights, according to UMG’s recent motion. It is crucial to highlight that while UMG’s dismissal application under the TCPA is pending, Drake’s legal team will be unable to depose UMG representatives or request further information during this time.

UMG’s counter to Drake’s petition underscores the company’s commitment to using freedom of speech as a primary defense against his legal claims. In response to a separate defamation lawsuit filed earlier this month, UMG responded that Drake “seeks to weaponize the legal process to undermine artists’ creative expression and pursue damages from UMG regarding this artist’s music distribution.”

Furthermore, UMG reaffirmed its intention to “vigorously defend this case in protection of our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who may become a frivolous target of litigation for merely creating music.”

Both Drake and Lamar’s works are distributed by UMG, with Drake through Republic Records and Lamar via Interscope Records.

Among other points raised, UMG argued that the district court in Bexar is not the “proper venue” for Drake’s petition because the company lacks an office in the Bexar district or anywhere else in Texas. Additionally, UMG pointed out that the Texas Supreme Court “has clearly stated that Rule 202 cannot be employed to summon witnesses globally into Texas for reasons solely based on the petitioner’s inquiry.”

“(Drake) seeks to arm the legal process in order to make the artist’s creative expression and seek damage from UMG for the spread of the music of this artist.”

Application Universal Music Group in response to a January lawsuit about defamation

Despite being originally from Toronto, Drake maintains a legal residence in Texas. The state’s laws provide unique opportunities for him that are not typically available in many other jurisdictions or federal courts. According to state Civil Procedure 202, courts have considerable authority to order “pre-litigation discovery” — an investigation into issues not yet subject to formal trial.

However, UMG contends that the state anti-SLAPP law applies here, as Drake’s petition implicates UMG’s right to free speech. “TCPA safeguards parties against this kind of legal retaliation, providing an expedited process to dismiss such actions,” noted UMG in its motion for dismissal, as reported by MBW (see below).

UMG also indicated that Drake had previously made similar allegations of “payment” in his defamation lawsuit, and Texas courts have earlier ruled that petitions under Rule 202 are “unnecessary” if the investigation is already being pursued in another court.

UMG’s dismissal application also argues that Drake “cannot establish Prima Facie elements for his case, as it is ‘not supported by competent evidence’.”

In his petition, which is accessible here, Drake stated that the extensive success of Not Like We in streaming, sales, and radio play was intentional and relied heavily on improper and irregular business practices.

The petition referenced an unnamed “insider” who allegedly informed Drake that UMG “made undisclosed payments to multiple platforms, including radio stations, to play and promote Not Like We without any disclosure of these transactions to the public.” This practice, known as Payola, is illegal under the Communications Act of 1934. The petition further noted that in 2006, UMG paid 12 million dollars to settle a lawsuit related to similar allegations brought against it by the state of New York.

In its response, UMG labeled Drake’s claims as “inadmissible hearsay” and deemed the 2006 settlement “irrelevant” to the current legal matter.

Drake’s petition maintains that the Bexar District Court is the appropriate venue for the case, as the principal offices of iHeartMedia are located in San Antonio, which is in Bexar County.

However, the petition acknowledged that Drake’s legal team “could not confirm if any iHeartRadio stations were among those who received payments within UMG’s (alleged) ‘payment for play’ scheme”—yet they suspect iHeartMedia’s involvement due to its status as “the number one company” in the United States.

In its motion to dismiss, UMG requested that the court resolve the petition within 60 days and demanded that Drake cover all UMG’s legal fees and costs associated with defending against this court claim.