The Streisand Effect in Action: Drake Files Defamation Lawsuit Over “Not Like Us”

By Robert H. Feinberg, Ian Joyce, and Lilly M. Harris

When do lines in a “diss track” become defamatory? That is the question the Southern District of New York may be called on to answer in the recently filed lawsuit by Rapper Aubrey “Drake” Graham against his publisher UMG Recordings, Inc (UMG).

The lawsuit has its origins in a long-running rivalry between Drake and fellow Rapper Kendrick Lamar. The rivalry hit its zenith over the summer when Lamar released the diss track “Not Like Us” containing the lyrics:

Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young
You better not ever go to cell block one
To any [woman] that talk to him and they in love
Just make sure you hide your lil’ sister from him
. . .
Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles
. . .
Tryna strike a chord and it’s probably A minor

As of this article, “Not Like Us” has been streamed over one billion times on Spotify,¹ making it one of the most popular songs of all time. According to many critics, the song also ended the ongoing rap beef between Drake and Lamar, with Lamar widely being viewed as the victor.

Rather than release a song responding to “Not Like Us,” Drake has taken a somewhat unusual tactic: filing a series of lawsuits against his own publisher UMG — which, in an ironic twist, also published “Not Like Us.”

Relevant here, Drake has sued UMG in the Southern District of New York alleging that the lyrics quoted above, as well as certain imagery in the album cover and music video, falsely accuse him of being a criminal pedophile.² Drake claims that this allegation harmed his reputation, caused him mental anguish and lost earnings, and lead to “palpable physical threats.” The lawsuit also asserts a claim against UMG for using artificial intelligence and third parties to artificially boost the “Not Like Us” track’s streaming numbers.

In addition to the defamation action, Drake has also filed a lawsuit in Texas, which similarly accuses UMG of artificially inflating the popularity of “Not Like Us.”

Drake’s lawsuit may have unintended consequences. Because truth is a defense in defamation cases, UMG may request discovery to prove that he truly “like[s] ‘em young.” Such discovery could include requests for his text messages, computer search history, and detailed information about his sexual history. Further, UMG could depose Drake’s former girlfriends, friends, and family. Consequently, Drake’s attempt to tamp down rumors about his sex life may instead cause the public eye to hone in.

Although the defamation lawsuit will likely take years to resolve, it has at least two big takeaways for businesses or individuals considering a defamation claim or finding themselves defending against one. First, this lawsuit is a classic example of a defamation lawsuit leading to the “Streisand Effect” — i.e., the theory stating that an attempt to cover up harmful materials only increases public awareness of it. Second, the Drake suit is part of an increasing trend: high profile individuals or companies filing lawsuits in response to critical content — especially content accusing the person of some sort of sexual or criminal impropriety.³ While historically these lawsuits would have low odds of success due to the “actual malice” standard announced in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), these plaintiffs may be buoyed by recent statements by the Supreme Court indicating it may be ready to do away with that standard.⁴

In serious defamation cases, it is important to have experienced counsel who are aware of these potential pitfalls and opportunities.