Defamation
Jay-Z’s rape accuser wants a federal judge to dismiss his defamation lawsuit against her, arguing she cannot be sued over allegations she made in court – and that a headline-grabbing NBC News interview is protected under the same legal logic.
In a court motion filed Tuesday, attorneys for the Jane Doe accuser and her attorney, Tony Buzbee, argued that her shocking accusations against the rapper were covered by the “fair report privilege” – a legal doctrine that largely bars defamation cases over allegations made during legal proceedings.
Jay-Z’s lawsuit – filed in March after Doe dropped her case against him – claims that she also defamed him by making similar allegations during an interview with NBC News. But in her new motion, she says those statements are also covered by the “fair report” protections.
Trending on Billboard
“The average person watching the report, and indeed anyone watching the report, would certainly understand that the statements refer to allegations in the lawsuit,” her lawyers write.
The case against Jay-Z, filed in December, claimed that he and Sean “Diddy” Combs had drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. Jay-Z forcefully denied the allegations, calling them a “blackmail attempt.” After just two months of heated litigation, Doe dropped her case without a settlement payment.
Weeks after the case was dropped, Jay-Z sued both Doe and Buzbee for defamation, malicious prosecution and other wrongdoing, claiming they had carried out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by making the “false and malicious” rape allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote in the lawsuit, filed in Alabama federal court. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
In Tuesday’s motion to dismiss that case, attorneys for Doe and Buzbee argued that they cannot be sued because they had made such statements in court. And they said the “fair report” privilege also clearly applies to the NBC interview, even if Doe gave statements that weren’t exactly the same as the claims she had raised in court.
“It is immaterial that the NBC News piece does not preface every statement with a reference to Doe’s amended complaint,” her lawyers write. “Doe’s statements in the NBC News piece are substantially the same as the allegations of her underlying amended complaint, even if they are not identical.”
Attorneys for Doe and Buzbee also argued that the other claims in Jay-Z’s case are similarly faulty, saying he has not “come close” to showing that he can sue for malicious prosecution. A representative for Jay-Z did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Alabama lawsuit is part of a sprawling legal battle between Jay-Z and Buzbee in the wake of the rape allegation. A separate case in California, in which Jay-Z is suing the lawyer for extortion and defamation, is awaiting an early-stage ruling by a judge. Buzbee has also filed his own cases against both Jay-Z’s Roc Nation and his longtime law firm, Quinn Emanuel, alleging they have harassed his clients and committed other wrongdoing.
Drake has filed an updated version of his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” claiming the rival’s Super Bowl halftime show was intended to “assassinate the character of another artist.”
In an amended complaint filed late Wednesday, Drake’s attorneys say the Super Bowl show, watched by 133 million people and “million of children”, “revitalized the public’s attention” to lyrics calling Drake a “certified pedophile” – a diss that the Canadian superstar claims is false and defamatory.
“It was the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist,” writes Drake’s lawyer Michael Gottlieb.
Trending on Billboard
During the halftime show, which took place weeks after Drake had already sued UMG over “Not Like Us,” 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 Wednesday’s updated lawsuit, Drake’s lawyers say 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’,” Gottlieb wrote in the new complaint. “The NFL, as well as the corporate entities responsible for the televised and streaming broadcasts of the Super Bowl Performance, all understood the words “certified pedophile” to be unacceptable in a broadcast to millions of listeners.”
Though it added new claims, the amended complaint also softened certain accusations against UMG, like the lawsuit’s claim that the label used bots to boost the song’s streaming numbers. Drake’s lawyers removed specific allegations about a “whistleblower” and potentially “indirectly” orchestrated such a campaign: “At minimum, UMG was aware that third parties were using bots to stream the Recording and turned a blind eye, despite having the power to stop such behavior.”
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, UMG blasted Drake and his lawyers over the latest filing, calling the case “frivolous and reckless” and saying that changes were made to the lawsuit because Drake’s team was “fearful of being sanctioned for asserting false allegations.”
“Drake, unquestionably one of the world’s most accomplished artists and with whom we’ve enjoyed at 16-year successful relationship, is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another,” UMG wrote. “Should his legal representatives senselessly keep the New York lawsuit alive, we will demonstrate that all remaining claims are without merit. It is shameful that these foolish and frivolous legal theatrics continue. They are reputationally and financially costly to Drake and have no chance of success.”
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, eventually became a chart-topping hit in its own right.
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 has already filed a scathing motion seeking to dismiss the case last month, arguing not only that it was “meritless” but also ridiculing Drake for suing in the first place. That motion will be refiled following the filing of Wednesday’s updated lawsuit.
In one of the case’s earliest skirmishes, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled earlier this month that discovery could move ahead in the case, denying UMG’s request to halt document production and depositions until after she decides whether to dismiss the case entirely. Drake’s attorneys had already sought swathes of evidence, including Lamar’s recording contract.
Drake’s lawyers billed that decision as a major win at the time, allowing them to “see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide.” But on Thursday, UMG warned that the ruling would cut both ways: “That ‘win’ will become a loss if this frivolous and reckless lawsuit is not dropped in its entirety because Drake will personally be subject to discovery as well,” the company wrote. “As the old saying goes, ‘be careful what you wish for.’”
In their own statement Thursday, Drake’s legal team said the amended complaint “makes an already strong case stronger” than it was before: “UMG’s PR ‘spin’ and failed efforts to avoid discovery cannot suppress the facts and the truth,” Gottlieb said. “With discovery now moving forward, Drake will expose the evidence of UMG’s misconduct, and UMG will be held accountable for the consequences of its ill-conceived decisions.”
Universal Music Group is asking a federal judge to halt all discovery in Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” arguing that the star is unfairly demanding “highly commercially sensitive documents” – including Lamar’s record deal.
A day after moving to dismiss the lawsuit, UMG followed up Tuesday by asking the judge to pause discovery until he rules on that motion. That ruling is likely to end the entire case, UMG argued, and the label should not face costly demands for documents that will ultimately “be rendered moot.”
Such a delay is particularly necessary, UMG said, because Drake’s lawyers are already demanding “broad discovery” requests that impose an “undue burden” on the company. Those asks have allegedly ranged from Interscope boss John Janick’s pay structure to Lamar’s record deal.
Trending on Billboard
“Drake’s requests…seek production of confidential, proprietary, and highly commercially sensitive documents — including all contracts between UMG and Kendrick Lamar,” the label writes. “Proceeding with discovery while the motion is pending would waste the parties’ resources and would constitute an undue burden on defendant.”
In a statement Wednesday, Drake’s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb said it was “unsurprising” that UMG was “desperate” to avoid handing over evidence: “This motion is a ploy to delay producing documents and communications that UMG hopes to keep hidden and buried. If UMG has nothing to hide, it should not have an issue with discovery.”
UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Lamar released “Not Like Us” last May amid a high-profile beef with Drake that saw the two stars drop a series of bruising diss tracks. The song, a knockout punch that blasted Drake as a “certified pedophile” over an infectious beat, eventually became a chart-topping hit in its own right and was the centerpiece of Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
In January, Drake took the unusual step of suing UMG over the song, claiming the 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 moved to dismiss the case on Monday, arguing not only that Drake’s allegations against the company were clearly “meritless,” but that the star filed his case simply because he had been publicly embarrassed: “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”
In Tuesday’s filing, UMG argued that it was highly likely to succeed on those claims. And it warned that the daunting cost of defending against meritless defamation cases can be abused by those that want to squelch free speech.
“Critically, courts in this District have emphasized that defamation defendants must be protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections,” the company’s lawyers write. “A stay is therefore particularly warranted here given the untenability of Drake’s defamation claim and the First Amendment rights at issue.”
The two sides have already sparred over discovery once before. In a court filing last month, Drake’s lawyers said UMG was unfairly seeking to delay the case as their client continued to be defamed — and they cited Lamar’s halftime show as evidence of such ongoing harm. A judge eventually sided with Drake over that procedural issue, setting the stage for UMG’s motion on Tuesday.
Universal Music Group has filed a scathing first court response to Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” blasting the case as “no more than Drake’s attempt to save face” after losing a rap beef.
In a motion filed Monday (March 17) seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, attorneys for the music giant argued that Drake’s allegations against the company were clearly “meritless” — and that he had gone to court simply because he had been publicly embarrassed.
“Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,” UMG’s lawyers write. “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”
Trending on Billboard
In the filing, UMG pointedly noted that Drake himself had leveled his own “hyperbolic insults” and “vitriolic allegations” during the same exchange of stinging rap tracks, including accusing Lamar of domestic abuse and questioning whether the rival had really fathered his son.
“Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar,” the company’s attorneys write. “But now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims that ‘Not Like Us’ is defamatory. It is not.”
In a statement to Billboard on Monday, Drake’s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb responded to the new filing. “UMG wants to pretend that this is about a rap battle in order to distract its shareholders, artists and the public from a simple truth: a greedy company is finally being held responsible for profiting from dangerous misinformation that has already resulted in multiple acts of violence,” Gottlieb said. “This motion is a desperate ploy by UMG to avoid accountability, but we have every confidence that this case will proceed and continue to uncover UMG’s long history of endangering, abusing and taking advantage of its artists.”
Lamar released “Not Like Us” last May amid a high-profile beef with Drake that saw the two stars release a series of bruising diss tracks. The song, a knockout punch that blasted Drake as a “certified pedophile” over an infectious beat, eventually became a chart-topping hit in its own right and was the centerpiece of Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
In January, Drake took the unusual step of suing UMG over the song, claiming the 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.
But in Monday’s response, UMG says the lyrics to Lamar’s song are clearly the kind of free speech that are shielded from defamation lawsuits by the First Amendment. The song contains over-the-top insults, the company argued, but so do all such tracks, including those by Drake.
“Diss tracks are a popular and celebrated artform centered around outrageous insults, and they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed,” the company wrote. “Hyperbolic and metaphorical language is par for the course in diss tracks — indeed, Drake’s own diss tracks employed imagery at least as violent.”
In technical terms, UMG is arguing that Lamar’s lyrics are either “rhetorical hyperbole” or opinion — the kind of statements that might sound bad but cannot actually be proven false. Since defamation only covers false assertions of fact, statements of hyperbole and opinion can’t form the basis for such lawsuits.
To make that point, UMG cites Drake’s own public support for a 2022 petition criticizing prosecutors for using rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases. That letter, also signed by Megan Thee Stallion, 21 Savage and many other stars, criticized prosecutors for treating lyrics as literal statements of fact.
“As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, ‘the final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination’,” UMG’s lawyers write. “Drake was right then and is wrong now. The complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar. The court should grant UMG’s motion and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.”
Drake’s attorneys will file a court response to UMG’s motion in the weeks ahead, and the judge will rule on the motion at some point in the next few months. If denied, the case will move ahead into discovery and toward an eventual trial.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Amy Sussman / Getty
Tony Buzbee might need his own legal counsel. A judge is seemingly in favor of Jay-Z’s defamation case against the lawyer going to trial.
As reported by Rolling Stone, Judge Mark H. Epstein has given the Roc Nation CEO an informal nod of approval with his claims that Tony Buzbee was intentionally trying to defame his character. On Tuesday (Feb. 25), the magistrate held a hearing where he explained there is validity to Jay-Z’s concern and questioned if Tony Buzbee proceeded with the lawsuit ethically. He pointed out that the lawyer said he would not reveal the names of the defendants in the now dismissed sexual assault case until a formal investigation was completed. But in a social media post a user speculated that the John Doe was Jay-Z to which Buzbee liked the comment.
“When someone says Doe is Carter, and [Buzbee] ‘likes’ it, it’s not unreasonable to infer that [Buzbee] has just affirmed that he’s right, that Doe is Carter,” Epstein said. “Not having done the investigation we’d all like one to do is not going to be enough to show actual malice, I know that. The concern I have is juxtaposing that with Mr. Buzbee’s statements that he was not going to bring a lawsuit until he had done a full investigation,” Epstein said. “I agree this is the hardest question of the case, the ‘actual malice’ question.”
The judge would go on to question how Tony Buzbee proceeded with this high-profile filing. “If you say, ‘I’m not going to name names until I’ve done real investigating,’ and then you name a name, isn’t the implication that you did conduct a real investigation? And if you didn’t, is it okay? Is actual malice still not satisfied when I’m telling the public, ‘I did a real investigation and this guy engaged in child rape,’ and actually, I didn’t?”
Judge Mark H. Epstein did not seem in favor of granting Jay-Z the green light to move forward with his extortion lawsuit against Tony Buzbee, but the next hearing on this case is scheduled for March 26.
Megan Thee Stallion can proceed with a defamation lawsuit accusing social media personality Milagro Gramz of waging a “campaign of harassment” against the star on behalf of Tory Lanez, a federal judge says.
The rapper sued Gramz (Milagro Cooper) last year, claiming the YouTuber had been “churning out falsehoods” about the high-profile criminal case against Lanez, in which he was convicted of shooting Megan in the foot during a 2020 dispute in the Hollywood Hills.
In a 25-page decision on Friday (Feb. 7), Judge Cecilia Altonaga denied a request by Gramz to dismiss the case, saying Megan had made a “compelling case” that the blogger had defamed her by claiming the star lied during Lanez’s trial and that she was “mentally retarded.”
“Plaintiff’s claims extend far beyond mere negligence — they paint a picture of an intentional campaign to destroy her reputation,” the judge wrote. “That is more than enough to [deny the motion to dismiss].”
The judge also refused to dismiss Megan’s other claims against Gramz, including that Gramz had violated a Florida state law by sharing a pornographic “deepfake” of the rapper. Defense attorneys had argued that Gramz had not actually shared the clip merely by “liking” it on X, but Judge Altonaga noted Friday that she’d allegedly done more than that.
“By ‘liking’ an X.com post that featured the deepfake video, the video was exhibited on defendant’s X.com account’s ‘Likes’ page,” the judge wrote. “Defendant also brought the video ‘before the public’ when she allegedly directed viewers of her post to click on her ‘Likes’ page where the video had been archived.”
The judge did dismiss one claim — Megan’s accusation of cyberstalking — but allowed her to refile the case this month to try to fix the error.
In a statement to Billboard, Gramz’s attorney Michael A. Pancier stressed that the decision was an early-stage ruling subject only to a “more lenient legal standard” and that “many of these issues will be revisited at a later stage following the completion of the discovery process.”
“This decision does not reflect a determination on the merits of the case,” Pancier said. “The plaintiff must now substantiate her claims with credible and admissible evidence.”
A rep for Megan declined to comment on the ruling.
Lanez (Daystar Peterson) was convicted in December 2022 on three felony counts over the violent 2020 incident, in which he shot at the feet of Megan during an argument following a pool party at Kylie Jenner’s house in the Hollywood Hills. In August 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He has filed an appeal, which remains pending.
In an October lawsuit, Megan’s attorneys accused Gramz of repeatedly spreading falsehoods about that criminal case, including questioning whether Megan was even shot and claiming she was “caught trying to deceive the courts.” More recently, they said Gramz had pushed the “outlandish claim” that the gun Lanez used in the shooting had gone missing from evidence.
The lawsuit claimed the blogger made those claims because she was serving as a “mouthpiece and puppet” for Lanez as the singer sat behind bars. In an updated version of the lawsuit filed in December, Megan’s attorneys said prison call logs suggested that Lanez and his father had arranged to pay Gramz.
In seeking to dismiss the case, defense attorneys argued that Megan could not meet the difficult requirement of showing that Gramz had acted with “actual malice” — that she had either intentionally lied about Megan or had acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.
But in Friday’s ruling, Judge Altonaga said that the rapper’s claims, if later proven with evidence, would likely be enough to win a defamation case.
“The [lawsuit] makes a compelling case that defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff asserts that readily available information contradicted defendant’s statements at the time of publication [and that] defendant knowingly spread these falsehoods at Peterson’s direction, fully aware they were fabricated to harm plaintiff.”
“Finally, defendant seemingly profited from the defamation — gaining a larger social media following, online notoriety, and lucrative sponsorship opportunities,” the judge added.
Chris Brown has filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery, alleging the media giant defamed him with a 2024 documentary claiming that the R&B star had a long history of sexually abusing women.
Filed Tuesday (Jan. 21) in Los Angeles Superior Court, the complaint accuses Warner Bros. Discovery and Ample Entertainment, the production company behind Chris Brown: A History of Violence, of “promoting and publishing false information in their pursuit of likes, clicks, downloads and dollars and to the detriment” of the R&B star — all while “knowing that it was full of lies and deception and violating basic journalistic principles.”
“They did so after being provided proof that their information was false, and their storytelling ‘Jane Doe’ had not only been discredited over and over but was in fact a perpetrator of intimate partners violence and aggressor herself,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed by attorneys Arnold Shokouchi and Levi McCathern. “Mr. Brown has never been found guilty of any sex related crime…but this documentary states in every available fashion that he is a serial rapist and sexual abuser.”
Trending on Billboard
The Jane Doe who made sexual assault accusations against Brown in the documentary — whom he identifies in the lawsuit — is also named as a defendant in the complaint, which alleges the woman “completely disregarded the facts in an attempt for fame and fortune — all at the cost of Chris Brown and the reputation he has worked diligently in redeeming over the last decade.”
The “sensationalized, unfounded, and defamatory allegations” in the documentary “have been discredited, dismissed by the courts, or outright fabricated,” Brown’s lawyers write. The lawsuit further alleges that the Jane Doe filed a “frivolous civil lawsuit” against Brown in January 2022 in which she accused him of sexual assault and battery — but that her claims “were determined to be entirely fabricated, leading to the withdrawal of her attorneys and dismissal of the case” that same August “after a Miami Beach Police detective uncovered text messages…that exposed her dishonesty.” It adds that while an investigative report published by Rolling Stone in March 2022 “further discredited her claims,” the ID documentary nonetheless portrayed her “as credible, ignoring her established lack of veracity.”
Later in the complaint, Brown’s attorneys break down the Jane Doe’s alleged “history of violence and erratic behavior [that] should have raised red flags for any responsible journalist.” The suit includes a copy of an alleged restraining order filed against Doe by an ex-boyfriend in 2021 “after she physically assaulted him, threatened him with a knife, and engaged in online harassment.”
“These incidents, detailed in court records and leading to her arrest by the Los Angeles Police Department, were disregarded by the Defendants, who instead framed her as a reliable source to bolster their sensationalized portrayal instead of the physical aggressor in a romantic relationship,” the complaint reads.
Key to the lawsuit is the accusation that the companies behind the documentary moved forward with its release even though they allegedly knew it “contained false claims and violated journalist professional standards” — claims Brown’s lawyers now say “caused significant harm to Mr. Brown’s reputation, career, and business opportunities.”
Several individuals who appeared as talking heads in the documentary are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Brown is asking for $500 million in damages, “a portion of which will be donated to survivors of sexual abuse.”
Warner Bros. Discovery and Ample Entertainment did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
Drake has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that the music giant defamed him by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” claiming the label boosted a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a pedophile and put his life in danger.
Hours after his attorneys withdrew an earlier petition, they filed a full-fledged defamation lawsuit Wednesday against his longtime label – claiming UMG knew Lamar’s “inflammatory and shocking allegations” were false but chose to place “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers write in a complaint filed in Manahttan federal court. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
Trending on Billboard
In one of the lawsuit’s most vivid accusations, Drake claims that the release of “Not Like Us” has subjected him to risk of physical violence, including a drive-by shooting on his Toronto area home just days after the song was released.
“UMG’s greed yielded real world consequences,” his lawyers write. “With the palpable physical threat to Drake’s safety and the bombardment of online harassment, Drake fears for the safety and security of himself, his family, and his friends.”
Notably, the case does not target Lamar himself — a point that Drake’s attorneys repeatedly stress in their filings.
“UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal, but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists,” Drake’s attorneys say.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is yet another dramatic escalation a high-profile beef that saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks last year, culminating in Lamar’s knockout “Not Like Us” — a track that savagely slammed Drake as a “certified pedophile” and became a hit in its own right.
Drake shocked the music industry in November when he filed petitions suggesting he might sue over the fued — first accusing UMG and Spotify of an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song, then later claiming that the song had been defamatory. But those cases were not quite full-fledged lawsuits, and Drake withdrew one of them late on Tuesday.
Now it’s clear why: In Wednesday’s lawsuit, he formally sued UMG over the same alleged scheme, claiming the label “unleashed every weapon in its arsenal” to drive the popularity of Lamar’s track even though it knew the lyrics were “not only false, but dangerous.”
“With his own record label having waged a campaign against him, and refusing to address this as a business matter, Drake has been left with no choice but to seek legal redress against UMG,” his lawyers write.
The filing of the case represents a doubling-down for Drake, who has been ridiculed in some corners of the hip-hop world filing legal actions over a rap beef. It also will deepen further his rift with UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic.
In his complaint, Drake’s lawyers said the label opted to boost “Not Like Us” despite its “defamatory” lyrics because they saw it as a “gold mine” — partly because UMG owns Lamar’s master recordings outright, but also because it could use the song to hurt Drake’s standing in future contract talks.
“UMG’s contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment … UMG anticipated that extending Drake’s contract would be costly,” his lawyers write. “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.”
This is a breaking news story and will continue to be updated with additional details as they become available.
Marilyn Manson has dropped his defamation lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood and agreed to pay her $327,000 in legal fees, according to legal documents obtained by Billboard, officially ending a case that the shock rocker first lodged against his former girlfriend more than two and a half years ago.
Filed in March 2022, the lawsuit accused Wood of conspiring with another woman, Ashley Gore, to falsely portray Manson (real name Brian Warner) as a “rapist and abuser” in the public eye. Both women appeared in the 2022 documentary Phoenix Rising, in which Wood detailed her accusations of sexual abuse against the singer. The lawsuit claimed that both women “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured prospective accusers to emerge simultaneously with allegations of rape and abuse against Manson, and brazenly claim that it took 10 or more years to ‘realize’ their consensual relationships with Warner were supposedly abusive.”
But Manson’s lawsuit suffered a major blow in May 2023 after a judge largely sided with Wood in her move to have it thrown out by invoking California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which makes it easier for judges to dismiss cases that threaten free speech. In that ruling, the judge struck down much of Manson’s case after finding that the rocker had not shown he would ultimately be able to prove many of his accusations against Wood. Manson had appealed that decision this past August.
Trending on Billboard
“Marilyn Manson — whose real name is Brian Warner — filed a lawsuit against Ms. Wood as a publicity stunt to try to undermine the credibility of his many accusers and revive his faltering career,” Wood’s lawyer Michael J. Kump said in a statement sent to Billboard. “But his attempt to silence and intimidate Ms. Wood failed. As the trial court correctly found, Warner’s claims were meritless. Warner’s decision to finally abandon his lawsuit and pay Ms. Wood her full fee award of almost $327,000 only confirms as much.”
In his own statement, Manson’s attorney Howard King said, “After 4 years of fighting a battle where he was able to tell the truth, Brian is pleased to dismiss his still-pending claims and appeal in order to close the door on this chapter of his life.”
The public battle between Manson and Wood kicked off in February 2021, when Wood claimed in an Instagram post that Manson “started grooming me when I was a teenager and horrifically abused me for years.” In addition to Wood’s accusations, Manson has been hit with multiple sexual misconduct lawsuits over the last several years from women including former assistant Ashley Walters, model Ashley Morgan Smithline, Game of Thrones actress Esme Bianco and two Jane Doe accusers.
The majority of these cases are no longer active. In May 2022, a judge dismissed Walters’ lawsuit, citing the statute of limitations. Manson subsequently settled with both Bianco and one of the Jane Doe accusers, while Smithline recanted her allegations and claimed that Wood and others had “manipulated” her into bringing them.
Manson has denied all of the allegations against him.
Marilyn Manson has launched an appeal seeking to revive his defamation lawsuit against ex-fiance Evan Rachel Wood, arguing a lower judge who dismissed much of the case ignored key evidence.
Manson (real name Brian Warner) sued Wood in 2022, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” women to make false abuse allegations against him. But a Los Angeles judge tossed out most of the case in a ruling last year.
That ruling came under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers claimed Manson’s case was exactly that: a prominent musician using a lawsuit to try to silence someone speaking out about alleged abuse.
But in an appeal lodged on Tuesday, Manson’s lawyers argued that a lower judge had repeatedly misapplied that statute to prematurely end a valid lawsuit that had been aimed at exposing a “malicious campaign” by Wood and others.
“This is an appeal of an order granting two anti-SLAPP motions, in which the trial court rubber-stamped Defendants’ assertions of ‘protected activity’ before weighing and disregarding evidence to conclude that plaintiff Brian Warner could never prevail,” his attorneys write.
Manson also claims that the judge ignored key elements of the case, including “bombshell” testimony from another Manson accuser named Ashley Morgan Smithline, who says she “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against the singer.
Wood strongly denied those allegations, and the judge ultimately refused to consider Smithline’s testimony because it had been filed far past a key deadline for submitting evidence. In Wednesday’s appeal, Manson’s lawyers say that was a clear and reversible error.
“The trial court prioritized convenience over the core function of the anti- SLAPP statute, which is to dispose of truly meritless suits before discovery,” Manson’s lawyers write.
Wood is one of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past several years. Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many of the lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled.
Manson filed the current lawsuit against Wood in March 2022, accusing her and a woman named Illma Gore of launching an “organized attack” that had derailed his career. His lawyer said the women had carried out “a campaign of malicious and unjustified attacks.”
But Wood quickly fought back, moving to strike Manson’s case under the anti-SLAPP law: “For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
In May 2023, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet largely granted that motion, ruling that Manson had not sufficiently shown that he would ultimately be able to prove many of those accusations against Wood, including that she had been “pressuring multiple women to make false accusations,” as well as the allegation that she had forged a letter from the FBI.
Anti-SLAPP laws, which exist in states across the country, work by putting more burden than usual on defamation plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In last year’s decision, Judge Beaudet said Manson had failed to do so.
“The court does not find that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim based on the FBI Letter,” the judge wrote, referring to one of Manson’s specific legal claims.