iHeartMedia has settled a courtroom dispute with Drake over allegations the radio community obtained “payola” from Common Music Group (UMG) to play Kendrick Lamar’s anti-Drake diss monitor Not Like Us.
In a submitting on Thursday (February 27) with the Bexar County District Court docket in San Antonio, Texas – the place iHeartMedia is headquartered – attorneys for Drake mentioned the rapper and the radio community had “reached an amicable decision of the dispute to the satisfaction of either side.”
No additional particulars have been supplied within the courtroom submitting.
In a press release emailed to MBW, Drake’s authorized crew acknowledged: “We’re happy that the events have been in a position to attain a settlement passable to either side, and haven’t any additional touch upon this matter.”
Nonetheless, the authorized petition towards UMG will stay energetic within the Texas district courtroom.
Drake filed the petition with the courtroom final November, alleging that UMG “designed, financed after which executed a plan” to show Lamar’s Not Like Us “right into a viral mega-hit with the intent of utilizing the spectacle of hurt to Drake and his companies to drive client hysteria and, in fact, large revenues.”
The petition cited an unnamed “inside supply” that allegedly instructed Drake that UMG “made covert funds to plenty of platforms, together with radio stations, to play and promote Not Like Us with out disclosing these funds to listeners. This follow, generally known as ‘payola,’ is prohibited by the Communications Act of 1934.”
UMG is the father or mother firm of each Republic Information, which distributes Drake’s music, and Interscope, which distributes Kendrick Lamar’s music.
The petition additionally named iHeartMedia as a respondent. Drake’s attorneys admitted in courtroom paperwork that they have been “unable to substantiate whether or not any iHeartRadio stations have been among the many stations paid as a part of UMG’s [alleged] pay-to-play scheme,” however they suspected iHeartMedia’s involvement as a result of it’s the “primary audio firm” in the USA.
The petition will not be a lawsuit, however slightly a request for “pre-trial discovery” underneath Texas’ guidelines of civil process. Drake’s attorneys sought to depose UMG and iHeartMedia executives forward of a possible lawsuit.
In January, UMG filed a movement to dismiss Drake’s petition, arguing that the petition is “an obvious effort to stress [UMG and others] to restrict the distribution of Not Like Us.”
UMG’s attorneys cited the Texas Residents Participation Act, an “anti-SLAPP” legislation meant to forestall lawsuits which might be “designed and meant to intimidate and punish individuals for exercising their First Modification [freedom of speech] rights,” within the phrases of UMG’s movement.
The settlement between iHeartMedia and Drake comes as iHeartMedia faces a payola investigation by the US Federal Communications Fee (FCC) over an unrelated matter.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr notified iHeartMedia final week that he’s launching enforcement motion towards the corporate over allegations that the radio community has requested artists to carry out with out cost, or for decreased cost, at iHeart music festivals in change for “extra favorable airplay.” The allegations particularly contain the iHeart Nation Music Competition to be held in Austin, Texas, this coming Might.
Lamar’s Drake diss monitor Not Like Us was one of many largest hits of 2024, and has amassed greater than 1.2 billion streams on Spotify since its launch in Might 2024.
Lamar carried out the monitor throughout this yr’s Tremendous Bowl halftime present, a choice that was intently watched by music business insiders, given the litigation Drake has launched over the monitor.
Moreover the authorized petition in Texas, Drake has additionally sued UMG for defamation in a federal courtroom in New York, through which he accused the music firm of selling a “false and malicious narrative” about him through the content material of the lyrics, single paintings and music video for Not Like Us.
He additionally claims that the discharge and promotion of the recording has resulted in “bodily menace to [his] security” in addition to “the bombardment of on-line harassment,” and that Drake “fears for the security and safety of himself, his household and his buddies.”
The lawsuit doesn’t identify Lamar as a defendant, as a result of, within the view of Drake’s attorneys, the case is “fully about UMG, the music firm that determined to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood weren’t solely false however harmful.”
A UMG spokesperson instructed MBW in January: “Not solely are these claims unfaithful, however the notion that we’d search to hurt the popularity of any artist — not to mention Drake — is illogical.”
The spokesperson added: “We have now invested massively in his music and our workers all over the world have labored tirelessly for a few years to assist him obtain historic industrial and private monetary success.
“All through his profession, Drake has deliberately and efficiently used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to interact in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to precise his emotions about different artists.
“He now seeks to weaponize the authorized course of to silence an artist’s inventive expression and to hunt damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.
“We have now not and don’t have interaction in defamation — towards any particular person. On the similar time, we are going to vigorously defend this litigation to guard our individuals and our popularity, in addition to any artist who may instantly or not directly grow to be a frivolous litigation goal for having accomplished nothing greater than write a music.”Music Enterprise Worldwide
