Lawsuits
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Source: Carmen Mandato / Getty
Drake has officially brought the US Justice system into his “beef” with Kendrick Lamar. The Toronto rapper has filed a lawsuit for defamation against the Universal Music Group (UMG), his own record label.
Drake’s new lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”:
“It was just three days after UMG originally published the Recording and Image that Drake was targeted at his Toronto house by armed intruders in the 2024 equivalent of ‘Pizzagate.’”https://t.co/EVhVle8tsx pic.twitter.com/fMwDvoWQLp
— Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) January 15, 2025
Earlier, it was reported that Drake had dropped his initial legal petition against UMG and Spotify, where he claimed both entities had manipulated the plays of Kendrick Lamar’s scathing “Not Like Us” to his detriment. Per usual, Drizzy was met with scorn due to even the idea of brining the authorities into a rap battle.
But alas, it was only dropped so the 6 God could raise the ante, as reported by Variety, on Wednesday, January 15, he filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing UMG of defamation due its promotion of “Not Like Us,” where K. Dot likens him to a pedophile, amongst other derogatory (to the delight of many listeners) accusations. Per Drake, UMG knew that Kendrick Lamar’s claims were all lies, but they promoted the song anyway and “chose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists. UMG saw an opportunity, seized it, and continued to fan the flames.”
The suit contends Drake’s issue is with UMG boosting “Not Like Us” and not with Kendrick Lamar, technically.
Reports Variety:
Although Lamar’s lyrics are at the heart of the lawsuit, it clearly places the blame on Universal for releasing, distributing and promoting the song: “This lawsuit is not about the artist who created ‘Not Like Us,’” it suit reads. “It is, instead, entirely about UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false, but dangerous.” However, Drake seems to have backed down on claims that UMG and Spotify conspired to falsely boost the song’s streaming numbers; those allegations were strenuously denied by both companies. Ironically, Universal distributes both Lamar’s and Drake’s music — both artists own their recent master recordings via their companies — and has for the majority of both artists’ careers. The suit claims that because Drake’s current deal with UMG is nearing the end of its term, the company is attempting to devalue his music and profile in an effort to gain more-favorable terms in a renegotiation.
Now Drake is really getting cooked on the Internets. See for yourself in the gallery.
Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl performance just got that much more highly anticipated.
This story is developing.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Axelle/Bauer-Griffin / Getty
Jay-Z is not wasting any time in clearing his name. He has filed a new motion to dismiss the sexual assault lawsuit against him.
As spotted on Variety, the Brooklyn, N.Y., native has submitted another request to have a rape case terminated. Back in October, an unidentified woman filed a claim against Jay-Z and Diddy alleging the two raped her at a MTV Music Video Awards after party in 2000. As expected, the news of the allegation soon went viral to which the “Song Cry” rapper quickly responded with a written statement denying the claims. Jane Doe would go on to participate in an interview with NBC News and seemed to contradict her original statements detailed in the original filing.
http://WWW.TWITTER.com/RocNation/status/1865917852542247358
Soon after Jay-Z’s legal representation filed a request to dismiss the claim. On Dec. 26, 2024, Judge Analisa Torres denied it and ruled that Jane Doe can move forward with her lawsuit anonymously. The judge has since granted Jay-Z permission to request for a dismissal. His lawyer, Alex Spiro, filed a new motion Wednesday (Jan. 8), and according to Variety, the new document cites a “series of inconsistencies in the woman’s account.” This new filing also asks that Tony Buzbee, the lawyer representing Jane Doe, be imposed with a fee for “alleging facts without a sufficient investigation or by failing to withdraw those allegations once it is clear that they are false or exceedingly unlikely to be true.”
The legal professional has responded via a formal statement to Variety saying, “They are dead wrong. We won’t be bullied or intimidated, ever.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Christopher Polk / Getty
The lawsuits against Diddy keep coming in. A former employee says he was in charge of securing the rooms for the alleged freak offs.
As per TMZ the Bad Boy Entertainment mogul was hit with another legal action against him. On Wednesday, Dec. 23 Philip Pines filed against him with claims of sexual battery, sexual harassment, sex trafficking and more. The man says he worked for Diddy 2019 to 2021 and alleges that his duties included arranging, organizing and concealing the infamous sex parties that now have become synonymous with the Sean Combs. In the filing Pines says that he would not only book hotels for the invite only events but make sure they were staged to Diddy’s liking including ensuring they were stocked with alcohol, marijuana, buckets of ice, honey packs to improve erections and stamina, baby oil, towels, unnamed illegal drugs and more. Also on the list is a “Kink Power Banger” which is a drill like powered sex machine that produces over up to 195 strokes per minute.
Pines says that these events were referred to as “Wild King Nights” and often lasted a couple of days and involved multiple women. Aside from organizing and preparing the outlandish meet ups he also was tasked with ensuring no trace of evidence was left after the event was done. This included personally cleaning out the rooms removing bodily fluids stains and retrieving sex toys. In addition he says he would leave the housekeeping staff big tips in an effort to from them reporting any of the damages. Lastly, Pines says he was also forced to participate in the parties as a test of his loyalty and Diddy treated him “like an animal playing fetch in order to prove his loyalty.”
Diddy’s legal team has responded to matter exclusively to TMZ. “No matter how many lawsuits are filed, it won’t change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone—man or woman, adult or minor” their statement reads. “We live in a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. Fortunately, a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth, and Mr. Combs is confident he will prevail in court.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: YouTube / A&E
It seems Kanye is going to Kanye wherever and wherever. He did the absolute most during a virtual lawsuit deposition.
As reported by TMZ, the rapper was recently featured on A&E’s Interrogation Raw: Celebrity Under Oath. The news series shows high-profile stars participating in legal proceedings. To promote the premiere the network released a promotional trailer, which captures Kanye being questioned regarding a lawsuit MyChannel. Inc. filed against the “Stronger” rapper for allegedly stealing their technology.
As soon as Kanye joins the virtual call he makes it clear he sees this very important matter as beneath him by wearing a cap and keeping his head down while using his phone. Naturally, the lawyers request he put away the device to which Yeezy responds defiantly. “Due to my mental geniuses-ness, in order to focus on this bullish*t I need to be on a phone.” Shortly after, his counsel asks about the device. Kanye volunteers to get off the phone but then proceeds to put on a mask. When asked why he put on the facial covering he said, “because you don’t have the right to see my face.”
In a second clip, Kanye is asked where he is located during interrogation and tells the plaintiff’s lawyer “I’m not going to tell you! You’re never going to see me again.” When prompted further on who else is he with and what other items he has in the room besides the phone he yells “Are you stupid? You are talking to the richest Black person in the history of America.”
You can watch the trailer for Interrogation Raw: Celebrity Under Oath below.
Less than a week after he was indicted on sex trafficking and racketeering charges, Sean “Diddy” Combs is facing yet another civil sexual abuse case, this time claiming that he and another man “viciously raped” a woman at his New York City studio in 2001.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for Thalia Graves say that Combs and his head of security, Joseph Sherman, isolated her, drugged her and sexually assaulted her at his studio. The lawsuit says the rapper also filmed the attack and later showed it to others.
“For decades, she remained silent and did not report the crime out of fear that defendants would use their power to ruin her life, as they had repeatedly, explicitly threatened to do,” writes Graves’ lawyers, who include well-known attorney Gloria Allred. “To this day, plaintiff suffers from severe depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, and still lives in fear of defendants.”
The case is the latest of at least nine similar civil suits filed against Combs over the past year, each of which accuses him of sexual abuse and other wrongdoing. And it comes just a week after he was arrested and indicted by federal prosecutors on sweeping accusations of sex trafficking and racketeering – charges that, if proven, could see him sent to prison for life.
In the new case, Graves claims she was 25 years old at the time of the attack. She says she was dating one of Combs’ employees, and that he exploited the relationship to “lure” her into meeting him and Sherman alone at the studio.
Once alone, Graves alleges they gave her a drink that was “likely laced with a drug that eventually caused her briefly to lose consciousness.” She says she later “awoke to find herself bound and restrained,” at which time the pair “proceeded to brutally sexually abuse” her. Her attorneys say that “both men were undeterred by plaintiff’s cries for help throughout the attack.”
A representative for Combs did not immediately return a request for comment. Sherman could not immediately be located for comment.
Following the attack, Graves says she “never recovered,” suffering suicidal thoughts and other severe emotional damage. And she says any progress in healing was “dramatically reversed” when she learned last year that Combs had filmed the alleged attack and had “shown the video to multiple men.”
“Plaintiff could not believe that Defendants would record themselves committing such a gruesome crime and then proceed proudly and widely to disseminate the recording of it,” her attorneys write. “This action seeks redress for defendants’ brutalizing, misogynistic, and violent attacks.”
Ice Spice has reached an agreement to end a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from a Brooklyn rapper’s earlier track.
The case, filed earlier this year by a rapper named D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain), claimed that Ice Spice’s song – which spent 16 weeks on the Hot 100 in 2023 – was “strikingly similar” to his own 2021 track “In That Mood.”
But in a motion filed in federal court Friday, attorneys for both sides said they had agreed to resolve the lawsuit. Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed in court filings, and neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Trending on Billboard
Released early last year following Ice Spice’s 2022 breakout, “In Ha Mood” reached No. 58 on the Hot 100 and No. 18 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. It was later included on her debut EP Like..?, and she performed the song during her October appearance as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live.
In a lawsuit filed in January, D.Chamberz claimed that the two songs share so many similarities that the overlaps “cannot be purely coincidental.” He said the similar elements “go [to] the core of each work,” and are so obvious that they’ve already been spotted by listeners.
“By every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery,” D.Chamberz’s attorneys wrote at the time. “Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied.”
The lawsuit claimed the earlier song received “significant airplay” on New York City radio stations, including Hot 97 and Power 105.1, giving Ice Spice and others behind her track a chance to hear it.
In addition to naming Ice Spice (Isis Naija Gaston) as a defendant, the lawsuit also names her frequent producer, RiotUSA (Ephrem Lopez, Jr.), as well as Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and 10K Projects.
In April, the defendants formally denied the lawsuit’s allegations, but the case remained in the earliest stages when Friday’s agreement was reached.
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: The world’s biggest music companies file lawsuits against AI music firms accusing them of stealing copyrighted music at “an “unimaginable scale”; a federal judge rules that Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping “Savage” from an earlier song; the artist formerly known as Kanye West settles a copyright lawsuit filed by Donna Summer’s estate; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Major Labels Sue AI Music Cos. Over Training
In the latest battle between the music industry and artificial intelligence firms, the three major music companies filed lawsuits against AI startups Suno and Udio over allegations that they copyrighted music to train their models on an “unimaginable scale.” Like numerous other copyright cases already filed by book authors, visual artists, newspaper publishers and other creative industries, the new lawsuits ask what could ultimately wind up being a trillion-dollar legal question: Is it copyright infringement to use vast troves of proprietary works to build an AI model that spits out new creations? Or is it just a form of legal fair use, transforming all those old works into something entirely new? The music business already picked that fight once, when major publishers sued AI giant Anthropic last year over its use of written lyrics to train AI models. (That case remains pending). But the new case, spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America, is the first to deal with sound and music itself, targeting two companies that are offering models that spit out full songs at the push of a button. Suno and Udio have quickly become two of the most important players in the emerging field of AI-generated music. Udio has already produced what could be considered an AI-generated hit song with “BBL Drizzy,” a parody track popularized with a remix by super-producer Metro Boomin and later sampled by Drake himself. And as of May, Suno had raised a total of $125 million in funding to create what Rolling Stone called a “ChatGPT for music.” In the new lawsuit, the record labels alleged that that success had been built on the backs of real human artists: “Since the day it launched, Udio has flouted the rights of copyright owners in the music industry as part of a mad dash to become the dominant AI music generation service. Neither Udio, nor any other generative AI company, can be allowed to advance toward this goal by trampling the rights of copyright owners.” For more, go read Kristin Robinson’s full story on the new lawsuits, complete with access to the actual complaints filed against Suno and Udio. And stay tuned to Billboard for more updates as the two cases unfold in the federal courts…
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
MEGAN WINS COPYRIGHT CASE – A federal judge ruled that Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping song “Savage” from an earlier song, saying the songs were “qualitatively different” and that there was no evidence the superstar has ever even heard the little-known instrumental track. SUMMER SAMPLE SETTLEMENT – Ye (formerly Kanye West) finalized a settlement with the estate of Donna Summer to resolve a copyright lawsuit that accused him of “shamelessly” using her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” without permission in his song “Good (Don’t Die).” An attorney for the Summer estate confirmed to Billboard that the settlement did not include a license for West to legally re-release the offending track: “We got what we wanted.” YSL TRIAL DRAMA CONTINUES – Yak Gotti, one of Young Thug’s co-defendants in the YSL gang case in Atlanta, asked the Georgia Supreme Court to force Judge Ural Glanville to recuse himself from the ongoing trial, citing recent revelations about a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness. Gotti’s lawyers warned that the judge’s actions “offend public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” ALBUM HACKING SUIT RESOLVED – Kelsea Ballerini reached a settlement to end her lawsuit against Bo Ewing, a superfan she had accused of hacking her and then leaking her unreleased album. Ballerini agreed to drop the case after Ewing promised to never again share or access the offending materials. MADONNA CASE CLOSED – Two Madonna fans dropped their lawsuit complaining about delayed starts to her concerts, but the star’s lawyers quickly clarified that the move was “not the result of any settlement.” Reiterating earlier claims that the lawsuit had been a “strike suit” aimed at extorting a settlement, Madonna’s attorneys say they might still seek legal sanctions against the lawyers who filed the “frivolous” case. PETTY DOC SPARKS LAWSUIT – A filmmaker named Martyn Atkins filed a lawsuitagainst Warner Music over the 2021 Tom Petty documentary Somewhere You Feel Free, claiming the movie featured 45 minutes of his copyrighted film footage of the late rock legend without permission or payment. Atkins claimed he had been “conned” into sharing the footage with the producers after they promised him the chance to direct the documentary.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Southern District of New York / DOJ
We think it’s become pretty clear that when Nike sues you for copyright infringement, you’re going to lose as they’ve been shutting down any and everyone banking off of their classic silhouettes and now Kool Kyi has become the latest person to fall to the might swoosh brand and their team of high-powered attorneys.
Almost a year after Nike and Kool Kyi reached a settlement in their original copyright infringement lawsuit, as reported by Kari aka @sneakerphetish, a judge ordered Kool Kyi to cough up a cool million dollars in damages while shutting down their By Kyi sneaker line as it bares a striking resemblance to the classic Air Jordan 1 silhouette.
While some may feel that the Kool Kyi sneakers were just knockoffs of the Air Jordan 1’s, the sneakers did gain popularity over the years and it got to the point that Nike did take notice and decided to put an end to their run ASAP.
Now that Kool Kyi has been ordered to cease production of their sneakers and pay Nike $1 million for their troubles, we wonder if they’ll just return with a new and original silhouette of their own or give up on the sneaker game altogether.
What do y’all think Kool Kyi should do? Sound off in the comments section below.
Drake is pushing to be dismissed from the sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at Travis Scott‘s Astroworld festival, arguing that he had nothing to do with planning the deadly event and can’t be sued for simply showing up for a brief guest appearance.
More than 2,500 people have sued over the 2021 Astroworld event during which a crowd of fans rushed toward the stage during Scott’s Nov. 5 performance, leaving 10 dead and hundreds injured. Though the lawsuits mainly target Scott, Live Nation and other organizers, Drake was also named as a defendant in some cases because he appeared on stage during Scott’s deadly performance.
But in a motion filed Friday (Mar. 8) in Houston court, attorneys for Drake (real name Aubrey Drake Graham) argued that the star should not be involved in the case at all. They said he had no involvement in Astroworld beyond being asked to take the stage — and that festival organizers had “confirmed under oath that Mr. Graham was not involved in any planning.”
Trending on Billboard
They also say that Drake was unaware of any safety problems before he took the stage. “Mr. Graham did not receive any security briefings, was not informed of any crowd control issues, injuries or deaths in the crowd, or any stop show orders at any time either before or during his 14-minute performance.”
Instead, they say that Drake merely “arrived at the venue at approximately 7:30 PM and remained largely secluded backstage in a trailer until approximately 9:54 PM,” at which time he was “informed to take the stage.” The star then “immediately took the stage as requested, performed for approximately 14 minutes, and then exited the stage at 10:08 PM.”
The lawsuits over Astroworld claim that organizers were legally negligent in how they planned and conducted the event, including by failing to provide adequate security and emergency support. The cases, combined into one single large action in Houston, are seeking billions in potential damages. Much of the last two years has been spent in discovery, as the two sides exchange information and take depositions of key figures.
In Friday’s motion, Drake’s lawyers argued that the discovery process had resulted in “hundreds of hours” of depositions and “hundreds of thousands of pages of documents,” but that none of it had established that Drake could be held liable for negligence.
“Plaintiffs produce no evidence that Mr. Graham actually knew of any risk in the Festival site design and layout, competence or adequacy of Festival staffing and personnel, or emergency procedures such as show stop authority,” his lawyers wrote.
The alleged victims, represented by an array of plaintiffs law firms, will have a chance to respond to Drake’s motion in the weeks ahead.
A Los Angeles judge is pressing pause on a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Lizzo by three of her former backup dancers, halting all proceedings while the star appeals a recent ruling that allowed the case to move forward.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a decision Thursday, Judge Mark H. Epstein ordered the case “stayed” while Lizzo challenges his January ruling, which largely rejected her efforts to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech.
It’s unclear how long that process will take, but it will be at least several months before the case resumes.
Trending on Billboard
Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) was sued in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, who claim she and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. created a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including sexual harassment and religious and racial discrimination.
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo’s accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself allegedly led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
Repped by Hollywood defense attorney Martin D. Singer, Lizzo fired back in October, arguing that Davis, Williams and Rodriguez filed the case seeking “a quick payday with minimal effort.” He said they had “an axe to grind” against the star because they had been reprimanded over “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
Lizzo’s motion to dismiss the case cited the anti-SLAPP statute, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Her lawyers called the harassment lawsuit “a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
But in his ruling in January, Judge Epstein ruled that the anti-SLAPP law didn’t quite fit all of the lawsuit’s allegations. He tossed out some claims – including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers – but ruled that remainder of the case could go forward.
Figuring out the proper balance – between protected speech and illegal discrimination – was “no easy task,” Judge Epstein wrote, but he said he had “tried to thread this needle.”
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote. “But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”
It’s that ruling that Lizzo is now appealing. The coming appellate fight will aim to answer tricky questions about the anti-SLAPP statute – a provision that is often used to fight back against defamation lawsuits, not against discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer.
In statement Friday, the accusers’ attorney Ron Zambrano said: “This case now hinges on appeals. They’ll file, then we’ll cross-file, so the judge has stayed the case for the time being pending those appeals.” An attorney for Lizzo did not immediately return a request for comment.