Spotify Responds To Drake’s Lawsuit Over Working With UMG To Inflate” Kendrick Lamar‘s “Not Like Us” Streams

Spotify has responded to Drake‘s legal filing that accuses the streaming platform of working with Universal Music Group to “artificially inflate” streams on Kendrick Lamar‘s “Not Like Us” diss. Spotify asserts that the Grammy-winning rapper’s petition has no standing in a motion filed on Friday (Dec. 20). The outlet reported that Spotify’s lawyers deny all claims leveraged by Drake, writing, “The predicate of Petitioner’s entire request for discovery from Spotify is false,” adding, “Spotify and UMG have never had any such arrangement. The filing continued to note the Toronto musician’s allegations of a conspiracy as “far-fetched” and “speculative,” and asserts his manner of making the accusations not as a full-fledged lawsuit to finesse the legal syste“What petitioner is seeking to do here… is to bypass the normal pleading requirements … and obtain by way of pre-action discovery that which it would only be entitled to seek were it to survive a motion to dismiss,” Spotify’s lawyers write. “This subversion of the normal judicial process should be rejected. “Spotify has no economic incentive for users to stream ‘Not Like Us’ over any of Drake’s tracks. Only one of Spotify for Artists’ tools, Marquee, was purchased on behalf of the song, for €500 to promote the track in France. Marquee is a visual ad that is disclosed to users as a Sponsored Recommendation.” The streaming platform noted, “Contrary to the allegations in the Petition, UMG and Spotify have never had any arrangement in which UMG ‘charged Spotify licensing rates 30 percent lower than its usual licensing rates for ‘Not Like Us’ in exchange for Spotify affirmatively recommending [“Not Like Us”],’ including ‘to users who are searching for other songs and artists Drake’s petition against Spotify was first leveraged against Spotify and UMG last month. In addition to payola claims, the 38-year-old accused UMG of distributing the song knowing that it “falsely” accused him of having had inappropriate relationships with young women. Drake’s legal rep argues that the label, “could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed. “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” asserted UMG in its initial response. “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.

SOURCE