Universal Music Group (UMG) has asked a Texas court to dismiss Drake’s petition to depose UMG representatives over the rapper’s claims that the music giant engaged in a “pay-to-play” scheme with radio stations.
Drake asked a court in Bexar County, Texas, last November to order the deposition of UMG representatives in order to gather evidence for a potential lawsuit. Specifically, Drake’s lawyers want to know whether UMG paid radio giant iHeartMedia to boost the exposure of Kendrick Lamar’s anti-Drake diss track Not Like Us.
Arguing that Drake’s petition is “an apparent effort to pressure [UMG and others] to limit the distribution of Not Like Us,” the record company asked the court last week to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), a so-called “anti-SLAPP” law.
The case is separate from the defamation lawsuit that Drake filed against UMG in a federal court in New York in mid-January, and it’s also separate from a similar petition the rapper filed with the New York Supreme Court last year, which he withdrew just before filing the defamation case.
Laws such as the Texas Citizens Participation Act are meant to stop lawsuits that are “designed and intended to intimidate and punish people for exercising their First Amendment [freedom of speech] rights,” in the words of UMG’s motion.
Crucially, a motion to dismiss under TCPA suspends discovery, meaning Drake’s lawyers won’t be able to depose UMG representatives, or otherwise request information from UMG, while the court considers the motion.
UMG’s response to Drake’s petition in Texas shows the company intends to use freedom of speech as a key defense against Drake’s legal actions.
In response to the defamation lawsuit filed earlier this month, UMG responded that Drake “seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
UMG said it would “vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”
Both Drake and Lamar’s music is distributed by UMG companies – Drake via Republic Records, and Lamar via Interscope.
Among other arguments, UMG said the district court in Bexar County is not a “proper court” for Drake’s petition because UMG “does not have an office in Bexar County, nor anywhere in Texas.”
UMG’s motion added that the Texas Supreme Court “has expressly rejected the idea that Rule 202 may be used to drag witnesses from anywhere in the world into Texas for depositions, merely because petitioner seeks information.”
“[Drake] seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
Universal Music Group statement in response to January defamation lawsuit
Though known for his Toronto roots, Drake maintains a legal address in Texas. The state’s laws also present a unique opportunity for Drake that wouldn’t exist in many other states or in federal court. Under the state’s Rule of Civil Procedure 202, courts have broad power to order “pre-litigation discovery” – investigations into matters that are not yet the subject of a lawsuit.
However, UMG says the state’s anti-SLAPP law applies in this case because Drake’s petition involves UMG’s right to freedom of speech.
“The TCPA protects parties from this exact kind of legal retaliation by providing an expedited process to summarily dismiss legal actions,” including petitions under Rule 202, UMG argued in its motion to dismiss, reviewed by MBW (see below).
UMG noted that Drake made the same “pay-to-play” allegations in his defamation lawsuit, and Texas courts have previously concluded that Rule 202 petitions are “unnecessary” if the matter under investigation is already before a court elsewhere.
The motion to dismiss also asserts that Drake “cannot establish a prima facie case for the essential elements” of his petition because it “is unsupported by admissible evidence.”
In his petition, which can be read in full here, Drake alleged that “the record-shattering spread of Not Like Us on streaming, sales, and radio play was deliberate, and appears to have relied upon irregular and inappropriate business practices.”
The petition cited an unnamed “inside source” that allegedly told Drake that UMG “made covert payments to a number of platforms, including radio stations, to play and promote Not Like Us without disclosing those payments to listeners. This practice, known as ‘payola,’ is prohibited by the Communications Act of 1934.” The petition noted that in 2006, UMG paid $12 million to settle a pay-to-play case brought against it by the state of New York.
In its motion, UMG calls Drake’s allegations “inadmissible hearsay evidence” and the 2006 settlement “irrelevant past litigation.”
Drake’s petition argued that the Bexar County court was the proper venue for the petition because iHeartMedia’s principal place of business is San Antonio, which is in Bexar County.
However, the petition admitted that Drake’s lawyers have been “unable to confirm whether any iHeartRadio stations were among the stations paid as part of UMG’s [alleged] pay-to-play scheme” – but they suspect iHeartMedia’s involvement because it’s the “number one audio company” in the United States.
In its motion to dismiss, UMG asked the court to rule on the motion within 60 days, and asked the court to order Drake “to pay all of UMG’s attorney’s fees and costs associated with defending against this legal action.”Music Business Worldwide
