Drake has taken the Kendrick beef from the court of public opinion to the actual court. This week, Drake’s lawyers filed a series of legal filings stating that they plan to find out whether Universal Music Group, the parent company of his label Republic Records, artificially boosted the fame of Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ diss tried to increase by paying Spotify. and iHeartRadio. The documents also allege on “information and belief” that bots and other forms of payola were used to inflate the streams and that Universal was complicit in “defamation” by supporting a song that accused him of being a “certified pedophile ” to be.

The gist of both documents becomes clear in part of the second document which states: “The record-breaking distribution of “Not Like Us” on streaming, sales and radio plays was intentional and appears to be based on irregular and improper business practices. .” Universal quickly came out after the initial lawsuit, telling TMZ: “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine one of its artists is insulting and untrue. We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action entry can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”

Over the past 24 hours, many have wondered what Drake wants to achieve with the petitions. Some have speculated that he is trying to use Universal for information, potentially allowing him to sue for breach of contract and get out of the deal. Others suspect he’s simply trying to put an asterisk on the success of “Not Like Us” to push back on the popular sentiment that he’s lost “the great rap war.”

Rolling stone spoke with streaming service Audiomack co-founder Brian “Z” Zisook, entertainment attorney Kevin Casini and another entertainment attorney who requested anonymity for their insight into the filings. All three people are equally clueless about Drake’s endgame and feel like it’s a vague suit — especially the defamation claim during a rap battle.

Casini clarified that no lawsuit has been filed against UMG. The first filing, in New York, was a petition seeking access to information that would help them “direct and tailor” a lawsuit and “notify the parties of record retention.” Casini adds that the petition “does not mean that all named parties will end up as defendants, and that there will be no other parties or different lawsuits if the petition is granted and the information obtained leads to that.” document, filed in Texas, was a request to depose people out of state, specifically someone from the lone star state-based iHeartRadio.

While the unnamed attorney called the filings part of Drake’s “justice play” against the industry, Casini called it more “whiny than anything.” The unnamed lawyer says these filings could be part of a long saga to get out of his UMG contract, but Zisook and Casini are more skeptical, with the latter noting, “I don’t really understand how that would create leverage to terminate the agreement.” to say. the record deal he has with Universal.” Faced with popular sentiment that Drake might argue that Universal breached his contract by artificially promoting “Not Like Us,” Casini notes, “that would essentially say that Universal would be obligated not to market Kendrick’s song because Drake feels that undermines the content of the song. And if the shoe was on the other foot, I don’t think Drake would be in favor of that.”

And he adds: “even in standardized recording agreements there will be an opportunity to remedy any breach of terms. So I’m not sure exactly what Drake thinks he might use if that’s the move. I’m not sure this is the step.”

Zisook says Rolling stone that there is no endgame for Drake that compensates for the self-sabotage of these declarations. “No amount of money in the world is worth the reputational damage Drake is causing himself by filing these lawsuits,” he said. “If Drake had learned that Kendrick was about to release a record making these claims and filed a lawsuit to block the song’s release, that would make more sense. But the song is over. It’s over. The whole world heard the record. The filing of these lawsuits serves as a reminder to the world. This is a classic case of the Streisand effect.”

Casini also called out the Streisand Effect by essentially noting that this lawsuit “really only serves to draw more attention to the lyrics that Drake finds offensive or objectionable. And I think the streaming numbers for the song will just go back up. Kendrick recently released his GNX album, which is poised to have another major streaming debut. Hysteria for the Compton rapper is already at a fever pitch, which could bring a second wind to “Not Like Us.”

Casini says he thinks the filings “look like” a precursor to a SLAPP lawsuit, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.” In an artistic context, he gives the example of someone who files a lawsuit against a company over an unflattering documentary that he does not want to be broadcast. In this specific case, Drake would challenge UMG’s participation in airing a diss track accusing Drake of being a “certified pedophile.” In the second document, Drake’s statement states: “Prior to approving the release of the song, UMG knew that the song itself, as well as its accompanying album art and music video, attacked (Drake’s) character… by falsely accusing him of being a sex offenders, engage in pedophilic acts, harbor sex offenders and commit other criminal sexual acts,” concludes that UMG “could have refused to release or distribute the song or required that it Offensive material has been edited and/or removed.”

Casini says that in 34 states, including New York and Texas, where Drake filed suit, an anti-SLAPP statute could be filed to counter the initial lawsuit. Casini says some SLAPP lawsuits “present themselves as seeking fair redress for complaints. But actually they only serve to prevent expression and speech.”

The initial filing notes that Drake believes Universal paid bots and engaged in payola to inflate the success of “Not Like Us” on streaming platforms. All three agree that payola and bots are widespread in the industry, but it will be difficult to prove. Casini says he feels it would be difficult for anyone at iHeartRadio to be ousted without a lawsuit being filed first. Zisook notes, “They would have to provide a paper trail showing that money or gifts changed hands specifically for ‘Not Like Us.’ The anonymous entertainment attorney adds, “A smart person obviously wouldn’t create a paper trail in a way that’s traceable. I think there are other ways you can combine it. Maybe there is no smoking gun.” But ultimately their opinion is ‘this is not even close to a lawsuit’.

All three agree that if UMG were forced to provide documentation of artificial streaming, their revelation could backfire on Drake. “It is likely that many artists, including Drake, have taken advantage of streaming bots without their knowledge,” Zisook said. “I think a lot of artists have had label (and) distribution partners, signed up for high-end programs like Discovery Mode and artificially manipulated streams, and the artist has no idea. And they don’t ask questions because it looks good.”

Casini notes that he does not believe that “Drake is interested in reforming the industry to the extent that the industry is broken,” adding, “I’m sure he was on the positive side of the support from the label someone else might consider payola at some point. So you have to be careful when you start casting stones.”

The anonymous attorney notes that Payola is “distorting the streaming royalty payment system in a way that is harmful and misleading to independent artists in particular,” but ultimately feels that “these are not the parties that should be making this argument . And this (is not) the forum for these people to do it. This is a rap battle gone wrong.”

While all three believe there is evidence for Payola possibleThey believe that Drake’s allegation of defamation will be much more difficult to litigate. “Defamation is really very difficult to prove,” says the anonymous lawyer. “Especially if you are fighting a similar battle yourself.” They add, “I think if this wasn’t in the context of a rap battle and Drake wasn’t dissing himself, he’d have a much better claim.”

Casini says, “I don’t really understand how Drake thinks it’s harmful to him that the song was released by Kendrick, other than the fact that it’s harmful to his reputation,” citing Drake who still has more monthly Spotify listeners then has Kendrick. Zisook adds, “I don’t think you can argue that their beef hurt the consumption of (Drake’s) back catalog in any way, so that was an interesting way they framed it. In any case, artists who aren’t Kendrick Lamar and Drake lost because much of the conversation was focused on the two of them and not spent in other ways.

From here, Casini notes, “everyone gets a chance to respond.” Universal has already responded to the first petition, but may have more to say on the second filing. And in Texas, Casini says, “I don’t know exactly who would respond unless it’s iHeartMedia saying there’s no reason to make a statement, so we’re not going to do that.” While he believes the New York filing “has the most teeth,” he ultimately feels the case doesn’t have much “meat on the bone” for a trial.

“Maybe he’s lost the plot a bit here, but time will tell. I’m not sure how far this goes. Sometimes these things flare up, and then they just go away. “Zisook says, “I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that this doesn’t go any further,” and “the fact that it happened at all will do even more damage to Drake’s reputation than he has experienced in the last 12 months.”

The unnamed attorney says they feel the disagreement is “not even close to going to trial” because of the difficulty in proving defamation. “The streaming bots and the pay-for-play stuff, I assume he feels strongly that there is some documentation to prove this. Ultimately, though, it doesn’t change this battle. I don’t think the average consumer is going to say, ‘Oh, Kendrick paid for bots. That’s why Drake actually won. ”