Common Music Group Chief Govt Lucian Grainge referred to as Drake’s lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s hit diss monitor “Not Like Us” a “farcical” effort that’s “groundless and indeed ridiculous.”
In a declaration letter filed Thursday evening within the Southern District of New York, Grainge stated that Drake’s accusation that UMG (the mother or father label agency to each Drake and Lamar) defamed him and broken his profession “makes no sense due to the fact that the company that I run, Universal Music Group N.V., has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Drake, including longstanding and critical financial support for his recording career, the purchase and ownership of the bulk of his recording catalog, and the purchase of his music publishing rights.”
Drake signed a brand new take care of UMG label Republic in 2022 for a reported $400 million, and he’s one of many bestselling artists of the final 20 years. But Interscope artist Lamar’s scathing “Not Like Us” famously capped a venomous battle between the 2 artists, which resulted in a pair of Grammy wins for Lamar, who carried out the music on the Tremendous Bowl halftime present.
Drake’s attorneys, in discovery, have just lately tried to acquire UMG’s contract with Lamar and details about his private life (Drake accused Lamar of beating his associate within the music “Family Matters”). Drake has accused UMG of each defamation and operating a clandestine marketing campaign to spice up “Not Like Us” on the expense of his personal repute and profession.
A notably exasperated Grainge wrote to the court docket that “Given my role, I am accustomed (and unfortunately largely resigned) to personal attacks, and I further recognize that a frequent strategy of UMG’s litigation opponents is to attempt to waste my and UMG’s time and resources with discovery of the sort that Drake is seeking here — either in an attempt to gain media attention or in an effort to force some kind of commercial renegotiation or financial concessions.”
Grainge additionally denied having any private involvement within the rollout or advertising and marketing for “Not Like Us.”
“Whilst, as part of my role, I certainly have financial oversight of and responsibility for UMG’s global businesses,” he stated, “the proposition that I was involved in, much less responsible for, reviewing and approving the content of ‘Not Like Us,’ its cover art or music video, or for determining or directing the promotion of those materials, is groundless and indeed ridiculous.”
In a separate letter to the court docket, UMG stated that “The premise of Drake’s motion — that he could not have lost a rap battle unless it was the product of some imagined secret conspiracy going to the top of UMG’s corporate structure — is absurd.”
