Spotify officially responded to Drake’s claims in a legal filing last month that Kendrick Lamar’s Not like us it was “artificially inflated”.
Last month, Drake, through his company Frozen Moments LLC, was indicted Universal Music Group and Spotify artificially inflating streaming numbers for Kendrick Lamar’s mega-hit Not like us – a diss track for drake.
Drake’s claims were made in a legal filing filed in New York, in which lawyers for the artist’s company alleged that UMG used “bots” and other methods to artificially inflate numbers for Lamar. Not like us.
Drake’s petition, which you can read in full here, alleged that UMG “began a campaign to manipulate and saturate streaming services and airwaves with a song, Not like usin order for this song to go viral, including using ‘bots’ and pay-to-play deals’.
The report also claimed that “UMG was charging Spotify licensing rates 30 percent below the usual licensing rates for Not like us in exchange for Spotify positively recommending the song to users searching for other unrelated songs and artists.”
It goes on to claim: “Neither UMG nor Spotify disclosed that Spotify had received compensation of any kind in exchange for recommending the song.”
In response to Drake’s claims of a 30% lower rate in exchange for referrals, a Spotify spokesperson told MBW on Friday (December 20): “Spotify has no financial incentive for users to stream Not like us over any Drake track.”
The SPOT spokesperson added: “Only one of Spotify’s tools for artists, Marquee, was purchased on behalf of the song, for €500 to promote the track in France. Marquee is a visual ad that is revealed to users as a Mandatory Recommendation.”
A spokesman for Universal Music Group told MBW last month: “The suggestion that UMG would go out of its way to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue. We use the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns.
“No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can hide the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
Spotify has also filed formal opposition documents in response to Drake’s petition, including an Opposition Brief and an Affirmation in Support of the Brief, both of which were received by MBW. In the previous filing, SPOT’s attorneys argue that Drake’s report “they must refuse.”
Within the affidavit filed in support of the Objection Order, made by David KafferVP, Head of Music and Audiobook Operations at Spotify US, the executive maintains that “contrary to the allegations” made in Drake’s report, via Frozen Moments LLC, “UMG and Spotify have never no agreement in which UMG “charged Spotify license rates 30 percent below normal licensing rates for Not like us in exchange for Spotify recommending positively [Not Like Us]”, including “to users searching for other songs and artists”.
Kaefer’s confirmation also noted that Drake’s report claimed “that an unidentified person mentioned on a podcast that he used bots to achieve 30,000,000 streams on Spotify in the first few days of its release Not like us” but suggested Spotify “found no evidence to substantiate this claim”.
Elsewhere in confirmation, which you can read in full here, Kaefer notes that “Spotify is investing heavily in automated and manual assessments to prevent, detect and mitigate the impact of artificial streaming on our platform.”
The statement continued: “When we detect attempted stream manipulation, we take action which may include removing stream numbers, withholding royalties and charging penalty fees. Confirmed and suspected artificial flows are also removed from our graph calculations. This helps us protect royalty payments for honest, hardworking artists.”
Meanwhile, in the opposition filing, obtained by MBW and which can be read in full here , Spotify’s lawyers noted that Drake’s petition “alleged that UMG artificially inflated the track’s popularity through several avenues, including using bots and pay-to-play deals, paying social media influencers to promote the song and taking steps to hide his plan with firing employees associated with Drake.”
The brief argues, however, that “under the guise of the far-fetched claim that this gives rise to a civil RICO claim, the petitioner in this proceeding seeks to invoke the extraordinary remedy of pre-action discovery.”
The report adds: “As for Spotify – a stranger to this controversy – the petition makes a single allegation, on information and belief, that Spotify agreed with UMG to a reduced royalty rate for Not like us in return “I recommend [it] to users looking for other unrelated songs and artists.”
“On this basis, petitioner seeks pre-action discovery of documents sufficient to show any such agreement and the financial benefits he allegedly received. As stated in the accompanying affidavit, the predicate of petitioner’s entire request for discovery from Spotify is false: no such agreement exists. In any event, however, the petition is legally deficient and should be dismissed.”
Both Drake and Lamar release their records through UMG and Republic Records and Interscope, respectively.
Not like us (Viewer), recorded by Lamar as part of a bitter rap feud with Drake, it was released on May 4 as part of a three-track diss series, all released within days of each other (the other tracks are Euphoria and Meet the Grahams).
Drake’s lawyers also filed a second legal action against UMG last month, this time in Texas.
In the second filing, obtained by MBW and which can be read in full here, attorneys for Drake claim that “UMG designed, financed and then executed a scheme” Not like us”into a viral mega-hit intended to use the spectacle of damage to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenue.”
The filing adds: “This plan succeeded, probably beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”Music Business Worldwide
