Spotify has responded to allegations that it helped prop up Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” after the streaming service got pulled into Drake’s legal squabble with Universal Music Group.
In November, Drake accused UMG — the major label that both he and Lamar are signed to — of surreptitiously bolstering the widespread appeal of Lamar’s Drake-aimed diss track, including an allegation that UMG and Spotify worked out an arrangement to discount the streaming licensing rates on “Not Like Us” in exchange for increased audibility.
Although the potential legal battle is between the artist and his label, Spotify responded to Drake’s likely-to-fail petition in a statement to Music Business Worldwide, denying that the streaming service and UMG had to deal to cut licensing rates by 30 percent, nor did they overtly “recommend” the song to users or allow bots to “artificially inflate” the song’s streams.
“Spotify has no economic incentive for users to stream Not Like Us over any of Drake’s tracks,” a spokesperson for the streaming service said. Spotify also filed its own opposition brief to Drake’s petition, stating that it “should be denied.”
“Under cover of the far-fetched contention that this gives rise to a civil RICO claim, Petitioner in this proceeding seeks to invoke the extraordinary remedy of pre-action discovery. As to Spotify — a stranger to this fracas — the Petition sets forth a single allegation, on information and belief, that Spotify agreed with UMG to a discounted royalty rate for ‘Not Like Us’ in exchange for ‘recommending [it] to users who are searching for other unrelated songs and artists,’” the opposition brief, obtained by Rolling Stone, said.
“On this basis, Petitioner seeks pre-action discovery of documents sufficient to show any such agreement and the financial benefits allegedly received. As set forth in the accompanying affirmation, the predicate of Petitioner’s entire request for discovery from Spotify is false: there is no such agreement.”
In the late-November filing, Drake’s company Frozen Moments accused UMG of having a “scheme” with bots and payola to boost the song while the two artists were feuding, according to a filing obtained by Rolling Stone. The filing is not yet a lawsuit but a “pre-action disclosure” for information.
“UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices,” attorneys for Drake’s company wrote in the pre-action, accusing UMG of false advertisement, deceptive business practices, and violating the RICO Act. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”
Drake’s attorneys, citing “whistleblowers,” also write that Lamar’s label paid social media influencers to “promote and endorse” the song without “disclosing the payment.” The attorneys further claim, without naming sources, that UMG workers who are “perceived as having loyalty to Drake” were fired from the company.
A spokesperson for UMG previously denied Drake’s allegations, “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue. We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. 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.”
