Drake Goes To Court, Miley Cyrus Strikes Back, UMG Fights Limp Bizkit Case & More Music Law News
Written by djfrosty on November 26, 2024
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Drake goes to legal war over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us”; Miley Cyrus strikes back at a copyright lawsuit over her chart-topping “Flowers”; Universal Music Group responds to Limp Bizkit’s $200 million royalties lawsuit; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Drake Takes UMG To Court
Back in May, as Kendrick Lamar and Drake exchanged scathing diss tracks, I wrote an entire story dismissing the idea that Drake would sue over the beef. Sure, these were very specific insults from Kendrick, and I talked to legal experts about what it might look like if he did. But it was almost unthinkable that he’d really do it. As I wrote at the time, “An actual lawsuit seems unlikely, for the simple reason that any rapper responding to a diss track with a team of lawyers would be committing reputational suicide.”
Welp, here we are. In a pair of actions filed Monday (Nov. 25) in New York and Texas, Drake and his lawyers went to legal war over “Not Like Us” — only not with Lamar himself, but with the label that both superstars have called home for the majority of their careers.
Trending on Billboard
In the New York petition, Drake’s attorneys accused Universal Music Group (UMG) of launching an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to artificially pump up Lamar’s song. In the Texas filing, he echoed those claims but went even further, complaining that UMG could have blocked the release of a song that “falsely” accused him of being a “pedophile,” but instead “chose to do the opposite.”
“UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues,” his lawyers write. “That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
It’s worth noting that neither action is quite a lawsuit. Both were “pre-action” filings, seeking discovery and depositions that might yield evidence supporting such claims. But in seeking that info, Drake’s lawyers leveled serious accusations: In New York, they accused UMG of racketeering, deceptive business practices and false advertising; in Texas, they said they had enough evidence to sue the company for defamation, and might also tack on civil fraud and racketeering claims.
UMG, for its part, quickly fired back, calling the allegations “offensive and untrue” and stressing that it employs the “highest ethical practices” in promotion: “No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
Drake’s allegations raise tricky questions about the line between litigation and public relations. The star is no dummy when it comes to the music business, and he’s repped in these cases by top partners at an elite BigLaw firm. It’s hard to imagine they’d file entirely baseless actions based purely on hurt feelings. But in a hip-hop world that prizes authenticity above all else, it’s also fair to wonder if the benefits of this approach can possibly outweigh the risk of reputational harm.
Stay with Billboard as this dispute moves forward — we’ll keep you updated on every development.
THE OTHER TOP STORY: Miley Strikes Back
Two months after Miley Cyrus was hit with an eyebrow-raising copyright infringement lawsuit over her chart-topping “Flowers,” her attorneys fired back with an interesting response.
Raised eyebrows, you say? The case, which claims “Flowers” infringes the copyright to Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man,” targets an “answer song” — a track with lyrics that overtly respond to those of an earlier song. In this case, fans speculated that Cyrus was alluding to a song that her ex-husband had loved. Does that kind of lyrical riffing amount to infringement? Experts didn’t think so at the time.
But in September, Miley was hit with a lawsuit seeking to prove that it does, arguing that her smash hit “would not exist” without Mars’ song. Adding to the intrigue? The case was filed not by Mars himself, but by an investment firm that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers.
In her first response to the case this week, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.
For more, go read our full story on Miley’s response, which includes access to the full motion filed by her attorneys.
Other top stories this week…
JUST ONE OF THOSE SUITS – Universal Music Group (UMG) fired back at a lawsuit from Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst claiming the label owes the band more than $200 million, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court. Durst alleged last month he had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades, but UMG said in its first response that it had paid the band millions and that the lawsuit is “based on a fallacy.”
ST. LUNATICS DROP OUT – Three of Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmates (childhood friends Murphy Lee, Kyjuan and City Spud) formally dropped out of a lawsuit seeking royalties from the rapper’s breakout album Country Grammar — two months after they said they hadn’t wanted to sue him in the first place.
YOUNG THUG LAWSUIT – Now that he’s home from jail, attorneys for concert giant AEG said they’re ready to push ahead with a civil lawsuit accusing the rapper of violating an exclusive touring agreement. Filed in 2020 but long delayed by his criminal case, the case claims Young Thug owes more than $5 million under the deal and that he’s obligated to hand over some of his music to pay down that debt. And in newer filings, AEG leveled new accusations that Thug improperly sold off some of those rights while the case was pending.
TRUMP GUITARS – Guitar manufacturer Gibson sent a cease-and-desist letter to the branding agency behind a line “Trump Guitars” endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump, alleging the design of the instrument infringes the company’s trademark rights to the shape of the famed Les Paul guitar.
TORY LANEZ UPDATE – California prosecutors flatly rejected recent claims made by Tory Lanez’s legal team that the gun he allegedly used to shoot Megan Thee Stallion has gone “missing,” calling the accusations about vanished evidence “demonstrably false” and “troubling.” Those arguments were made as part of Lanez’s appeal seeking to overturn his felony convictions over the 2020 shooting.
‘ELECTRIC AVENUE’ SETTLEMENT – Donald Trump reached an agreement with Eddy Grant to resolve a long-running lawsuit over his use of “Electric Avenue” without permission in a 2020 campaign video. The deal came two months after a federal judge ruled that Trump infringed the copyright to the 1982 hit, and will resolve any need for further litigation to figure out how much the President-elect must pay in damages under that ruling.
SONY ENDS RACE CASE – Sony Music settled a lawsuit filed by a former assistant to Columbia Records chief executive Ron Perry who claimed she was forced to resign after pushing back on hiring practices that allegedly discriminated against white applicants. Sony had called those accusations “contradictory and false” and was actively seeking to have the case dismissed when the settlement was reached.
SIRIUS TROUBLE? A New York state judge ruled that SiriusXM violated federal consumer protection law by making it too difficult for listeners to cancel their subscriptions. The ruling came from a lawsuit filed last year by New York’s attorney general, who accused the company of subjecting canceling subscribers to a “burdensome endurance contest” that required phone conversations with a live agent and extended time spent on hold.
PIRACY AT SCOTUS – Nearly five years after the major labels won a $1 billion music piracy verdict against Cox Communications, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it might jump into the case by asking the U.S. Department of Justice to weigh in.