Casini also evoked the Streisand effect by essentially noting that this litigation “really only serves to bring more attention to the lyrics that Drake finds offensive or objectionable. And I think the streaming numbers for the song will just go up again.” Kendrick recently released his GNX album, which is poised to have another big streaming debut. The hysteria for the Compton rapper is already at a fever pitch, which may spur a second wind for “Not Like Us.”
Casini says that he thinks the filings “look like” a precursor to a SLAPP suit, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.” In an artistic context, he gives the example of a person filing a suit against a company for an unflattering documentary that they don’t want to be aired. In this specific instance, Drake would be fighting UMG’s participation in airing a diss song that accuses Drake of being a “certified pedophile.” In the second document, Drake’s representation states, “Before it approved the release of the song, UMG knew that the song itself, as well as its accompanying album art and music video, attacked [Drake’s] character…by falsely accusing him of being a sex offender, engaging in pedophilic acts, harboring sex offenders, and committing other criminal sexual acts,” concluding that UMG “could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed.”
Casini says that in 34 states, including New York and Texas, where Drake filed, an anti-SLAPP statute can be filed as a counter to the initial suit. Casini says some SLAPP suits “masquerade as if they’re looking for honest redress for grievances. But really they serve only to prevent expression and speech.“
The first filing notes that Drake believes Universal paid bots and engaged in payola to inflate “Not Like Us” success on streaming platforms. All three agree that payola and bots are rampant in the industry, but it will be difficult to prove. Casini says he feels like it would be difficult for anyone at iHeartRadio to be ordered to be deposed without a lawsuit first being filed. Zisook notes, “They would need to provide a paper trail, showing money or gifts changed hands specifically for “Not Like Us.” The anonymous entertainment lawyer adds, “A smart person would obviously not create a paper trail in a way that’s traceable. I think there’s other ways that you could piece it together. There might not be a smoking gun.” But ultimately, their opinion is “this gets nowhere near trial.”
All three agree that if UMG was compelled to provide documentation of artificial streaming, their reveal could blowback on Drake. “It’s likely that a lot of artists, Drake included, have benefited [from streaming bots] without their knowledge,” Zisook says. “I think a lot of artists have had label [and] distribution partners, who have opted into above-board programs like Discovery Mode and have artificially manipulated streams, and the artist has no idea. And they don’t ask questions because it looks good.”
Casini notes he doesn’t believe that “Drake is interested in reforming the industry to the extent that the industry is broken,” adding, “I’m sure that he was on the beneficial end of support from the label that somebody else might consider payola at some point. So you have to be careful when you start casting stones.”
The anonymous lawyer notes that payola “disrupts the streaming royalty payout system in a way that is harmful and deceptive to, in particular, independent artists,” but ultimately feels like “these [aren’t] the parties that should be having this argument. And this [isn’t] the forum for these people to be doing [it]. This is a rap battle going wrong.”
While all three believe that evidence of payola is possible, they believe that Drake’s surmising defamation will be much more difficult to litigate.“Defamation is really, really hard to prove,” the anonymous lawyer says. ”Especially when you engage in a similar battle yourself.” They add, “I think if this wasn’t in the context of a rap battle and Drake wasn’t [dissing] himself, he’d have a lot better claim.”
Casini says, “I don’t really understand how Drake thinks that it’s injurious to him that the song released by Kendrick other than the fact that it’s harmful to his reputation,” citing Drake still having more monthly Spotify listeners than Kendrick. Zisook adds, “I don’t think you can make an argument that their beef hurt the consumption of [Drake’s] back catalog whatsoever, so that was an interesting way that they framed this. If anything, artists who aren’t Kendrick Lamar and Drake lost because so much of the conversation was geared toward the two of them and not spent in other ways.”
From here, Casini notes, “everybody gets a chance to respond.” Universal already responded to the initial petition but may have more to say about the second filing. And in Texas, Casini says, “I’m not sure exactly who would respond unless it’s iHeartMedia saying there’s no reason for us to be made to sit for a deposition, so we’re not going to do that.” While he believes the New York filing “has the most teeth,” he ultimately feels like the case for a lawsuit doesn’t have much “meat on the bone.”
“He may have lost the plot here a bit, but time will tell. I’m not sure how far this goes. Sometimes these things flare up, and then they just kind of go away.” “Zisook says, “I think it is in everyone’s best interest that this does not move forward,” and “the fact that it happened at all undeniably is going to damage Drake’s reputation even more than he has experienced over the last 12 months.”
The anonymous lawyer says they feel the disagreement “gets nowhere near trial,” because of the difficulty of proving defamation. “The streaming bots and the pay-for-play thing, I’m assuming he feels strongly that there’s some documentation that can prove this. Ultimately, it doesn’t change anything about this battle, though. I don’t think the average consumer is going to say, ‘Oh, Kendrick paid for bots. Therefore, Drake actually won.'”
You not gonna call me a pedophile with no paperwork 
