When Art Meets Law: Analyzing Drake's Defamation Case Against UMG - Ep. 61

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker return from a brief hiatus to delve into two significant legal topics making headlines: recent tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and a high-profile defamation lawsuit involving music industry giants Drake and Kendrick Lamar.

We kick off the episode with Jack discussing the newly announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which are set to take effect on March 12, 2025. He explains the implications of these tariffs, including a substantial increase from 10% to 25%, and how they will affect various industries, particularly construction. Jack highlights the statutory powers granted to the president by Congress, specifically referencing the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows for such tariff increases under the guise of national security. He emphasizes the potential consequences for businesses reliant on international imports, including price hikes and shortages, and discusses the lack of existing contractual provisions to address these sudden changes in material costs. For the latest on International Trade, Amundsen Davis's Ngosong Fonkem has multiple legal write-ups that can be read on www.amundsendavislaw.com.

Transitioning to the second segment, Danessa takes the reins to cover the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Drake against UMG Recordings, Inc. The lawsuit stems from a heated feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, which escalated into a series of diss tracks and public accusations. Danessa outlines the timeline of events leading to the lawsuit, including violent incidents that occurred at Drake's home, which he attributes to the fallout from the feud and UMG's actions in promoting Kendrick's diss track, "Not Like Us."

The hosts analyze the unique nature of the lawsuit, noting that Drake has chosen to sue the record label rather than Kendrick himself. Danessa discusses the creative and visually engaging nature of Drake's complaint, which includes graphic elements and a dramatic introduction detailing the threats to his safety. The episode explores the legal complexities of defamation, particularly the requirement for public figures like Drake to prove actual malice on the part of UMG.

Danessa and Jack emphasize the importance of understanding the legal ramifications of both the tariff situation and the defamation lawsuit, encouraging listeners to stay informed about these evolving issues. They remind the audience to consult legal professionals for guidance in navigating these complex matters, particularly those in the construction industry facing the fallout from the new tariffs.

Episode Transcript

Danessa Watkins (00:04):
Welcome to Litigation Nation. I'm your
host, Danessa Watkins, here withmy co host, Jack Sanker. We are
back from a short hiatus tobring you some of the latest,
greatest, most exciting legalnews from across the country.
Jack, what are you gonna talkabout today?

Jack Sanker (00:19):
We're talking tariffs. What are they? The the
new ones that the Trumpadministration has just recently
as of, like, yesterday handeddown. What power exactly does
the president have to do this?Why are they important?
And, you know, what type ofbusinesses are gonna be
affected, and what can thosebusinesses do about the tariffs?

Danessa Watkins (00:36):
Alright. And I'm gonna cover the defamation
lawsuit that is currentlyrocking the music industry. This
is Drake's claims against hisrecord label for promoting and
publishing Kendrick Lamar's disstrack against him, Not Like Us.

Jack Sanker (00:51):
Among other things.

Danessa Watkins (00:52):
Among other things. Yes. As a reminder, as a
reminder, we come out with showsevery two weeks, and you can
find us wherever you get yourpodcasts, Apple, Spotify,
YouTube, etcetera. So with that,let's kick it off. Here's what
you need to know.

Jack Sanker (01:14):
So we're gonna start by talking about tariffs,
and I I promise that this showis not going to be a beat by
beat, coverage of everythingthat the Trump administration
does. I think that would kindagoes against the mission of the
show and would get pretty boringpretty quick. But there is a lot
to talk about. And, the goodnews for us is that the man does

(01:35):
make it easy for contentcreators. So, we are gonna be
talking about the new tariffs,just, handed down by the White
House today.
What are they? First of all,what power does the president
have to actually do thesethings? Why are they important?
And then, businesses that Ithink you can reasonably project

(01:57):
that are gonna be affected bythese tariffs, what can they do
in their everyday businesspractices to protect themselves
from some of the downsides? Sowe'll start with the tariffs.
What when I say the tariffs,what are we talking about here?
For this, I'm gonna rely on acouple of recent publications,
but in particular, I'll shoutout one of our partners Ngosong

(02:18):
Fonkem. We are recording thistoday on 02/13/2025. And, as
recently as February 10,February eleventh, president
Trump announced additionaltariffs on steel and aluminum
imports. So going to Ngosong'srecent article that was posted
on our website,www.amundsondavislaw.com, I'm

(02:39):
getting a lot of thisinformation from there.
What are the tariffs? EffectiveMarch 12, so coming up, all
steel and aluminum imports toThe United States, are going to
be subject to a new increasedtariff. This tariff is going to
be 25%, which is an increasefrom 10%. This is for steel and

(03:01):
aluminum imports, like, Isuppose, as raw materials, but
also derivative articles, whichwould include, you know,
widgets, items like that thatcontain steel and aluminum.
Derivative articles, only thesteel or aluminum portion will
be subject to these tariffs.
And as we record today I mean,actually, a couple hours ago

(03:22):
when I was putting together mynotes for the show today, Trump
also announced, reciprocaltariffs on all other countries.
And this would include the valueadded tax, the the VAT tax in
the EU. So all these are inaddition to the tariffs from
about a month ago, the flattariffs that were announced
against, Mexico and Canada,which some of which have been

(03:46):
walked back, and also thoseagainst China, etcetera. So this
portion of the podcast today, ifyour supply chain relies on
international imports of anykind, and many do, my practice
area in particular, whichconstruction, is gonna be hit
hard. And I'm not saying this isa political statement.

(04:07):
There are plenty of, Trumpsupporters in in, you know, my
industry who are, not happyabout this. And, what you can
expect to see in terms ofshortages and price hikes as a
result of these tariffs. So,what are the president's powers
with respect to tariffs? Kindrespect to tariffs? Kind of a

(04:30):
brief history there.
Most of it, I actually didn'tknow this, is statutory. It's
not directly coming from theconstitution. I just kind of
assumed because my entire lifethe president has dabbled with
this stuff and I never reallylooked into it. But, most of the
tariff power that we seediscussed in terms of, like, you
know, a new administration comesin, announces a new policy,

(04:51):
whatever, it's power that wasexpressly delegated to the
executive by congress, over thepast, like, hundred years. I had
no idea.

Danessa Watkins (05:00):
Like, once they delegate it at some point in
time, it just stays in place?

Jack Sanker (05:03):
Well, they passed a law that's never been rev
revoked or or overturned. So,like, there's the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962, which isbeing relied on for these new,
steel and, aluminum tariffs. Itit unilaterally allows the
president to hike tariffs basedon, recommendation from the

(05:26):
secretary of commerce, which isa position that's, like,
appointed by the president andcan, like, you know, you can
easily put a yes person inthere. Secretary of commerce has
to recommend it first, that theimportation of an item is deemed
to, quote, threaten or impairnational security. Once you have
that recommendation, thepresident can go ahead and, you
know, do what he wants with withtariffs.
And that's this has actuallyhappened, I remember, in

(05:48):
02/2018. Trump proposed theoriginal 10% tariff on steel,
and they've remained 10% untilnow. Now they're 25%. But this

Danessa Watkins (05:58):
When was it? You said the act was in 1962?

Jack Sanker (06:01):
Yes. Nineteen sixty.

Danessa Watkins (06:02):
Did you see what the original purpose of of
that delegation was? Like, whatwas going on at that time?

Jack Sanker (06:07):
Yeah. It it, that's a great question. It it was
dealing with the Kennedyadministration's kind of of
global trade, negotiations thatthe, the that JFK was doing at
the time with, like, I don'tremember exactly, but think of,
like, you know, like, NAFTA orone of these, like, big trade

(06:28):
deals or whatever. The Kennedyadministration was doing that, I
think, with Western Europe.Mhmm.
And as a way to get, thepresident the power to, like,
unilaterally negotiate on thoseterms, Congress passed this
version of the, Trade ExpansionAct. Got it. There was another
one. There's been, I mean,there's been a few. There's one

(06:49):
from 1930.
There's, one from 1974. Andthere's been, you know, some
tweaks around the edges fromCongress all the while, but it's
a a pretty broad delegation ofcongressional power. The
constitution kind ofunambiguously gives this tariff
power to congress. Article onesection eight says the congress

(07:11):
shall have the power to lay andcollect dues, duties, impose and
excises, but all dues imposedand excises shall be uniform
throughout The United States.And then there's a separate part
of the constitution which barsthe states from doing their own,
import tariffs, which would bearticle one section 10.
No state shall without theconsent of congress, lay any

(07:32):
imposed or duties on exports orimports except what may be
absolutely necessary forexecuting its inspection laws.
So by and large, it's beeninterpreted to mean that tariffs
are under the express purview ofcongress. But, again, they've
delegated it via statute to thepresident. Mostly, you know, it
seems like for geopoliticalreasons over the years. So the

(07:55):
1962, Trade Expansion Act is thebasis for this current round of,
tariff hikes, on the groundsthat the steel and aluminum,
imports that are, you know,usually coming from China in
this case, are deemed a, quote,unquote, threat to national
security.
If that seems like a stretch toyou, it doesn't matter because
it's already been challenged andupheld, when Trump did it the

(08:18):
first time around in 02/2018.So, by all accounts, he's
allowed to do this, and, youknow, I'm sure folks will
challenge it again on differentgrounds, whatever, but, you
know, this is not outside thebounds of, you know, permitted
executive action at this point.So, the I mentioned the 1974
trade act that kind of expandedthe presidential power. And I

(08:43):
relied on an article published,by the Center for Strategic
International Studies in Octoberof twenty twenty four about for
kind of, like, the CliffsNotesof, on some of this legislation.
And I I thought that thedelegation of congressionally
enumerated powers to thepresident via statute was, you
know, worth mentioning in thisdiscussion in light of some of

(09:05):
the renewed interest in, youknow, congressional delegation
of power, like, we've we'vecovered in the past, like, the
overturning of the Chevrondoctrine, for example.
And, overturning of the Chevrondoctrine, for example. And you
see every day now in the news,complaints about the
administrative states, which is,you know, in one way or another,
a delegation of congressionalauthority, to the, you know,
bureaucratic blob or whateveryou wanna call it. So, so this

(09:26):
is another example of that, bythe way, of delegation of power,
but it's already been upheld bythe courts. I think it's gonna
be fine. Why is this important?
If, you know, if you haven'talready thought about this or
don't know, it is because it'sgoing to undoubtedly, in the
short to medium term, raise theprice on, you know, things that

(09:48):
are imported in The UnitedStates. Eight And A Half so, for
example, the tariffs on Canadianimports, which I don't they were
paused and then they may becoming back or whatever. Set
that aside. Assume that they'rein effect now. 8 and a half
billion dollars of wood productsare are imported into United

(10:09):
States in 2023.
Of that 8 and a half billion,like, 5,800,000,000.0 comes from
Canada. Right? So 70% of woodproducts that come into The US
is coming from Canada and wouldnow be subject to a 25% tariff
that is going to be passed tothe consumer one way or the
other. Right. Whether in formsof shortages because people
can't afford to import it orprice hikes because the

(10:31):
importers have to, absorb thatprice and someone's gonna pay
it.
The other example would be$456,000,000 worth of lime and
gypsum, which is importedimported from, all over the
world, but most of which comesfrom Mexico. That 456,000,000,

(10:52):
352,000,000 comes from Mexico,Seventy One Percent. So that's
subject to 25% taxes. And theseare the tariffs that are put on
those two countriesspecifically, not the steel and,
aluminum ones, but, you know,you get the idea. Mhmm.
Regarding the steel andaluminum, tariffs, it's causing

(11:14):
a folks in my world,construction developers,
builders, things like that.These are obviously critical
construction materials. And,you're seeing a lot of folks
that probably were otherwise,you know, aligned with a lot of
the Trump policy agenda, thatare, you know, that don't like

(11:37):
this. Right? So for example,the, chairman of the National
Association of Home Builders,said just today, the
administration's move to impose25 tariffs on all steel and
aluminum products imports intoUnited States runs totally
counter to parentheticalpreviously stated goal of
lowering housing costs.

(11:57):
By raising homebuilding costs,deterring new developments, and
frustrating efforts to rebuildin the wake of natural
disasters, ultimately, consumerswill pay for these tariffs in
the form of higher home prices,unquote. So the costs are
expected to be raised by, like,several billion dollars for the
construction industry generally.And that's, you know, gonna be
priced into the decision whetheryou wanna take on a new project,

(12:20):
of course, whether I can affordto build my new building
hospital or house or whatever itis. But, also, of the many
hundreds of thousands of ongoingprojects that, these materials
don't get bought all at once.Like, if you're building a
skyscraper, you are purchasingmaterials along the way.
And, what happens when the priceof those materials goes up?

(12:44):
Mhmm.

Danessa Watkins (12:44):
And you've already negotiated your
contract? Correct.

Jack Sanker (12:47):
So there's ways in I mean, folks that are listening
that are in the industry knowthis. The contracts that are
typically used do account forthese types of things generally.
Right? You can do I mean,there's there's change order
provisions. There's, forcemajeure clauses, different
contingencies, allowanceprovisions, things like that.

(13:10):
What's interesting is that mostof these types of price
adjustment provisions that arein, really all kinds of
contracts, but I'm talking morespecific to, construction
contracts here. It's comingfrom, AIA form documents. AIA is
like it's been publishingboilerplate contracts that you

(13:31):
can buy and incorporate intowhatever you're using.
Boilerplate contracts that youcan buy and incorporate into
whatever you're using, for,like, a hundred and thirty
years. And the AIA is like it'smost trade groups, rely on the
AIA for, you know, myboilerplate contract for x, y,
and z.
They've been vetted. They'vebeen litigated. Lawyers have
looked at them for years. Theyrevised them as the court's rule

(13:54):
on different provisions. It'sit's kind of like the the easy
but also really, really good wayto get yourselves whatever
contract documents you meet youneed.
The AIA does not havecontractual provisions
available, which that would dealwith the unexpected price swings

(14:15):
happening to materials, duringthe course of ongoing
construction, as a result of,like, executive action. So so,
arguably, arguably, a lot of thethings I mentioned earlier,
like, the first major clauses,how you can deal with things
over change orders, things likethat is not going to be

(14:35):
applicable here if you're asupplier or a builder or a
subcontractor who all of asudden, you know, can't procure
or has to pay through the noseto procure materials that you
would need to do your contract.There's just there's nothing
like boiler plate that'savailable. What that means for,
for these folks is that you'regoing to have to, either eat the

(15:00):
cost. So if you're in an ongoingproject, you sign the contract,
you're kind of, I mean, you'rekinda screwed.
Right? Mhmm.

Danessa Watkins (15:10):
Probably depends on how far you're into
the work too.

Jack Sanker (15:13):
Yeah. But, like, you know, it's gonna eat up
everyone's margins.

Danessa Watkins (15:16):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (15:17):
And, you know, it's it's it puts a lot of them in a
tough spot. And I'm alreadygetting, like, phone calls about
this. So it's you know, we havebuilders who are like, I don't
even know if I can begin work onthis because I don't know what's
gonna happen. I mean, thetariffs were announced this
week. Prices have already you'veseen, manufacturing companies
put up statements of, like,we're gonna increase our prices,

(15:38):
but, like, not everyone's donethat.
So you don't know where it hitsyou on the supply chain yet.

Danessa Watkins (15:43):
And just out of curiosity, because the whole
tariffs thing is kind of new,when these are put in place, is
there any sense of an end date,or is it just

Jack Sanker (15:57):
And, I mean, some of the it's a good question
because some of the statutoryempowerment of the executive to
increase tariffs is timelimited. Like, I I wanna say
it's a hundred and fifty daysfor certain things. I do not
believe that the, quote,unquote, national natural
national, security justificationthat's being, used here has a

(16:18):
time limit. Okay. So it's likeit's as long it's in place as
long as the president, you know,wants it to be in place.

Danessa Watkins (16:24):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (16:24):
In my opinion. Can either walk it back, or you get
a new president or whatever. Soif you're in the middle of a
project, I mean, this is a thisis a problem. We're already
seeing it. But if you'recontemplating bidding on on a
job or, you know, developingsomething or or or whatever,
what you need to be doing, andyou're not gonna be able to just

(16:49):
pull from your library of AIAcontracts to to properly protect
yourself, unfortunately.
You're going to have toeffectively get custom language
added, by an attorney, in theform of what we would call price
escalation clauses. And theseare similar to contingencies,

(17:13):
but they kind of allow for agreater range of, like,
triggering events. Like, itdoesn't have to be a hurricane,
for example, or or anything likethat. You have to agree on what
that triggering event is gonnabe. And what we've seen people,
we we saw people do this in 2018with the initial, steel tariffs
was adding price escalationclauses into their contracts,

(17:36):
which can be triggered by, like,an agreed upon price hike.

Danessa Watkins (17:42):
Okay.

Jack Sanker (17:42):
So, like, you know, your, and and you would agree
upon a price hike as measuredby, reliable, authority. Like,
what I've seen is the, Bureau ofLabor Statistics, they publish
the, producer price index, thePPI, which can tell you, you
know, whether the price ofsomething has gone up by a
certain percent over a certainamount of time. And you can

(18:03):
include reference that in thecontract and say, like, if the
price of steel goes up 10%, youknow, we are going to typically
see cost sharing then. So, like,you know, is the subcontractor
that is, expected to, expectedto bring the materials to the
project, beyond a certain pointof price, you can build in your
contract. We're gonna share thatthat new added cost, you know,

(18:25):
between ourselves and the owneror between ourselves in the
general or however you wanna doit.
So owner or between ourselves inthe general or however you wanna
do it. So, like, what it whatI've seen and what I think
people are gonna do is, includeprice escalation terms that will
trigger if the price of steelincreases by, like, 10% or so as
measured by PPI. That's where wekind of foresee this going in

(18:46):
terms of, you know, builders onthe ground and what they're
gonna do about this. But itultimately introduces a quite a
bit of volatility because wealso you know, we just saw the
tariffs get walked backimmediately.

Danessa Watkins (18:59):
Right. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (19:00):
So, like, you raise your prices and then and then do
you lower them? You know? Like,stuff like that.

Danessa Watkins (19:06):
So Yeah. That is interesting.

Jack Sanker (19:07):
If you have buying power, do you buy extra and
hoard it? Like, that's it's justwe saw what supply chain ripples
do to the economy during COVIDand, you know, which to to some
extent was unavoidable. Mhmm.And, this is, like, kind of
intentional. So Mhmm.
So we'll see is my is my, atleast kind of where I'll I'll

(19:30):
end this at. But there are waysto protect yourself so you just
aren't gonna be able to rely onbusiness as usual, with respect
to these new supply chainissues.

Danessa Watkins (19:42):
I mean, the contractors' issues is one
thing, and, obviously, they'llhave some negotiating power, I
would imagine. But I I hadn'teven thought about the, like,
what just happened in LA and allthe fires. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (19:54):
Oh, yeah.

Danessa Watkins (19:54):
Like, all of those families now trying to
rebuild or insurance companiesor whatever. You know? Like, is
this gonna increase all of ourinsurance as a result too?

Jack Sanker (20:02):
%. I mean Yeah. I mean, right. Like, the raw
materials that go into that gointo new construction go up,
then, like, the cost of therebuild goes up. And Mhmm.
I mean, potentially, the thecost the value of your property
goes up then because the resalevalue is higher, because there's
less housing being built becauseit's more expensive. So you're
paying more property taxes. Imean, like, it's a lot of
downstream effects here. And Iwould posit that we were not in

(20:26):
a great shape in this countrybroadly in terms of housing
construction anyways. And thisis, you know, this is gonna, at
least in the short to mediumterm, gonna exacerbate, I think,
a lot of those problems.
Mhmm. But, but that's what wegotta deal with. So for those of
you listening that haveconcerns, talk to your lawyer.

Danessa Watkins (20:46):
And we have a great construction site.

Jack Sanker (20:48):
Talk to your lawyer or talk to me. Give me a call.

Danessa Watkins (20:57):
Alright. Now moving on to the top defamation
lawsuit in the country rightnow, I would argue. Well, if you
haven't heard, there is acurrent claim being brought by
Aubrey Drake Graham, betterknown as Drake, against UMG
Recordings Inc, which is arecord label that he has been

(21:18):
part of for, I think, over adecade now, that was just filed
in the Southern District Of NewYork. Now to go back a little
bit about what this case isabout in case you haven't been,
you know, following anythingsocial media wise for for a
while. Back in I wanna say itwas April, maybe March of twenty
twenty four, there was a feudthat broke out between Kendrick

(21:41):
Lamar Duckworth, better known asKendrick Lamar, and Drake.
And it began when, Drake and JCole and other artists released
a track where Cole had crownedhimself, Drake, and Lamar as the
big three of rap. Lamar laterput out, his own or he I'm
sorry. He was a a guest verse ona track by Future and Metro

(22:04):
Boomin song like that, and heclaimed no to the big three.
It's just me. Over several weeksafter that, Lamar and Drake
released several distractsagainst one another.
There were accusations by Drakeagainst Lamar that he was a
domestic abuser. He had impliedthat Lamar's one of Lamar's

(22:26):
children was fathered by one ofhis close friends, and then
Lamar shot back at Drake callinghim a pedophile and a colonizer
exploiting hip hop culture. Soall this happened pretty quickly
and escalated pretty quickly andactually resulted in, I guess,
your just your classic feud ofpeople weighing in on both

(22:48):
sides, you know, people tryingto substantiate certain claims.
This was

Jack Sanker (22:52):
so exciting, by

Danessa Watkins (22:53):
the way. It was.

Jack Sanker (22:54):
I was so so I was so into this when it happened. I
was like, I could not I couldnot wait for the next salvo. And
sometimes you only had to wait,like, what, a

Danessa Watkins (23:03):
matter of an hour or something? And then next
one came out, like, it was itwas boom boom boom.

Jack Sanker (23:07):
Yeah. Yeah. It was awesome.

Danessa Watkins (23:11):
So things things turned dark for Drake,
soon after that. They were hereceived a lot of hate mail.
I'll get into to some of the theviolence that escalated
thereafter. But then inSeptember, I believe it was
actually September seventh oftwenty twenty four, Lamar
announced that he was performingat the twenty twenty five Super
Bowl halftime show

Jack Sanker (23:31):
Yes.

Danessa Watkins (23:32):
Which I think caused Drake and his legal team
to kinda kick into high gear alittle bit.

Jack Sanker (23:38):
Is there reference to the, the Amazon Prime event
in in any of the pleadings?

Danessa Watkins (23:45):
There might have been.

Jack Sanker (23:47):
Because there he did that absurd. I mean, it was
so

Danessa Watkins (23:50):
I think, yes. It was. Yeah. So the complaint
is, 81 pages long, and I didread a lot of it, but there were
some parts that

Jack Sanker (23:57):
Yeah. The the Amazon Prime live concert that
he did, which in which heperformed the infamous, Not Like
Us

Danessa Watkins (24:05):
Not Like Us. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (24:06):
I think, like, like, six times in a row. And,
like

Danessa Watkins (24:08):
Yes. It was. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (24:09):
That was the end. Like, half the NBA was on stage
dancing with them, and I wasjust like, this is Yeah. I don't
know how you come back from thisDrake. I don't know.

Danessa Watkins (24:16):
Right. No. It was it was a little bit tough to
watch at times, but, I mean, thesong is pretty catchy, so
there's that. But, yeah,eventually, Drake did end up
reaching out to UMG. I don'tknow that he ever reached out to
Kendrick Lamar's team.
I think he was just focused onthe record label. And there was

(24:38):
some pre suit, litigationmatters that I'll get to. But
finally, on January fifteenth oftwenty twenty five, so three
weeks, four week yeah. Threeweeks before the Super Bowl.
Drake did in fact file an 81page complaint in New York,
solely against UMG RecordingsInc.

(24:58):
Now that is currently pending. Idid look up the docket, and I
saw that UMG is is scheduled torespond to that complaint. They
already said they're filingmotion to dismiss by March 17.
So I think that briefing willprobably be finished up in April
or May, so we should have anupdate.

Jack Sanker (25:16):
He has not sued Kendrick.

Danessa Watkins (25:18):
Has not sued Kendrick, which I think probably
some, you know, some people inthe public are kind of confused
about that and and why he madethat choice. You think of
defamation, it's it's the personspeaking, which, you know, which
is Kendrick. But, no, he wentafter UMG, and I will explain
why.

Jack Sanker (25:38):
There you go.

Danessa Watkins (25:39):
So the I just wanna start with the
introduction of this complaint.Now people, you know, do take
some creativity with complaints,but, generally, it's just
paragraph one, paragraph two,you know, pretty, you know,
standard. This complaint, Iwould say, coming from my world,
is kind of like a work of art.Cool. There are there are photos

(26:01):
in there.
There's graphics.

Jack Sanker (26:02):
Oh, yeah.

Danessa Watkins (26:02):
There's exhibits, and the introduction

Jack Sanker (26:06):
Breaking all the local rules. Yeah. Not allowed
to do that.

Danessa Watkins (26:08):
I mean, I don't know. Maybe New York is a little
bit more flowery No.

Jack Sanker (26:12):
That would get

Danessa Watkins (26:12):
with their pleadings.

Jack Sanker (26:12):
That would get stricken and arduous.

Danessa Watkins (26:14):
This. So he starts with this quote in bold
and and italics by sir LucienGrange, who is the chief
executive officer of UMG. And heallegedly made this quote, not
even allegedly. I've seen it inthe pleadings. He made it on
March twenty fifth of twentytwenty four.
So within a year of filing thislawsuit, the CEO says, quote, a

(26:36):
single lie can destroy areputation of integrity. And
while it takes years to build areputation, it can be ruined in
five minutes. Then the complaintstarts right off with this
paragraph. In the middle of thenight on 05/07/2024, an armed
group of assailants drove up tothe Toronto house in which Drake

(26:56):
and his family resided. Drakewas inside.
The car stopped in front of theresidence. Someone yelled, fuck
Drake, and at least one gunmanbegan to open fire. One bullet
went through the security gateand hit Drake's front door.
Another bullet struck andwounded a security guard who was
also one of Drake's friends.While the car drove away, Drake

(27:17):
and others in the house summonedhelp for the security guard and
did everything possible to keephim alive.
During the nearly thirty minutesit took for the nearly thirty
minutes it took for theambulance to arrive, Drake and
others labored to keep the manalive by applying pressure to
the gunshot wound with towels.Blood was everywhere.

Jack Sanker (27:33):
That's actually, I knew there was, like, the
shooting, but I didn't know oh,man.

Danessa Watkins (27:36):
I know. I didn't know. Is that serious? It
continues. After the securityguard arrived at the hospital,
surgeons, plural, worked quicklyto remove the bullet, stop the
bleeding, and save his life.
Though it took days for hiscondition to stabilize,
thankfully, the security guardsurvived. The very next day,
05/08/2024, a different intruderused his bare hands to dig a

(27:59):
hole under the security fencesurrounding Drake's Toronto
house. He managed to dig deepenough to squeeze through and
enter Drake's property.Fortunately, Drake's home
security guards caught himbefore he was able to cause any
physical harm, although thetrespasser managed to yell
racist slurs and threats againstDrake before being escorted off
the property.

Jack Sanker (28:17):
Jesus.

Danessa Watkins (28:18):
On On 05/09/2024, the very next day,
another break in attempthappened. In the two decades
leading up to May of twentytwenty four, although Drake was
constantly in the public eye,nothing remotely like these
events had ever happened to

Jack Sanker (28:31):
him or his family, but these

Danessa Watkins (28:31):
events were not coincidental. They immediately
followed and were approximatelycaused by UMG's actions leading
up to and on 05/04/2024, endquote. What a way to start a
complaint.

Jack Sanker (28:45):
Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (28:47):
Setting the, you know, the the grounds for
all of the damage and fear thathe claims he's still, enduring
today, and puts all the blame onUMG.

Jack Sanker (28:59):
Well, that's interesting that it's I mean,
he's got, what I would say,concrete damages,

Danessa Watkins (29:04):
you know For sure.

Jack Sanker (29:05):
There, which is usually a little wishy washy
when it comes to this type ofcomplaint. Right. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (29:12):
So everyone, I think, it was kind of like,
alright. Why are you going aftera record label that seems a
little odd? Obviously, whensomeone puts out music, it's you
know, there are a lot of peopleinvolved. It's not just the
record label that are promotingthis. However, Drake is claiming
that UMG UMG took actions thatexceeded what they would have

(29:37):
done in normal, circumstances,cause it, unprecedented steps
to, for example, remove therecording's copyright
restrictions on YouTube, therebywhitelisting the recording to
ensure that content creatorswould republish it broadly.
Some of these claims are oninformation and belief, but say

(29:58):
that the

Jack Sanker (29:59):
These are you're talking about Kendrick Lamar
songs or Drake songs?

Danessa Watkins (30:03):
No. No. Sorry. The not like us Kendrick Lamar
songs. So UMG took these actionsthat were totally outside of the
norm Sure.
Just for this particular song.And Drake's argument is that
they did that because well, formoney purposes, but also they
understood at all times the harmthat it was gonna cause. Yeah.

(30:24):
He claims that the agents withinUMG put a thumb on the scale by
offering financial incentives tothird parties, trying to up the
streams on platforms. They wereusing bots and then would

Jack Sanker (30:39):
That's every they do that.

Danessa Watkins (30:41):
I was gonna say that's

Jack Sanker (30:42):
That's every like, didn't we cover this about the
guy who was making millions ofroyalties from Spotify by making
AI generated music and thenmaking AI bots listen to it?

Danessa Watkins (30:52):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (30:52):
Yeah. And that's like, okay. He actually just
invented the music industry'smodel from 2030. That is gonna

Danessa Watkins (30:58):
Right. Right. Right. Yeah. They

Jack Sanker (31:00):
do this. Record labels do this, by the way,
allegedly.

Danessa Watkins (31:02):
Allegedly. Yeah. I was gonna say, I don't
think it's, like, been proven.And that's why I think a lot of
these claims are uponinformation belief. So before he
filed this lawsuit, he did filetwo, I guess, pre litigation
actions in state court, one inNew York and one in Texas, where
he was trying to, essentiallyget discovery on, on all of this

(31:24):
and and what tactics they wereusing to try and bolster his
claims.

Jack Sanker (31:28):
Okay. So be like an RID in our Yeah. In Illinois
Yeah. Responded in discovery.

Danessa Watkins (31:34):
Yeah. Exactly. Now Kendrick Lamar's Not Like Us
has certainly shattered records.It received five Grammy
nominations, within a week ofits initial release, the track
garnered 96,000,000 streams,which broke the record for the
most streamed song over a sevenday period. And then on October

(31:57):
seventh of last year, it brokeanother record with the most
weeks at number one onBillboard's hot rap songs at
twenty one weeks.
So, I mean, we're not you know,this whole idea of of rap
battles is not anything that'snew to us. However, for a a diss
track to gain this muchpublicity, and, I think that's,

(32:17):
you know, just sets a newstandard for sure.

Jack Sanker (32:19):
Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (32:31):
So all of this, Drake alleges, culminated in UMG
making the most egregious stepof using its leverage, their
professional connections,etcetera, to make sure that
Kendrick was able to be the the,Super Bowl halftime performer.

(32:54):
I'm not sure if that allegationwas actually made on information
belief because I'm not sure howthat he's gonna have that
information. But Sure. Eitherway, we'll get into how that
played out in a minute. But asfar as damages, Drake is
claiming that UMG's intentionalconduct destroyed his
reputation, that listenersbelieve Kendrick Lamar's lyrics

(33:15):
to be truthful.
So Drake has just received anavalanche of online hate mail.
As we mentioned in thebeginning, it's escalated to the
violent intrusions on his home.He's had to pull his son out of
elementary school in Toronto andarrange sad. I that part is,
yeah, is definitely devastating.

Jack Sanker (33:32):
Are also sad. But

Danessa Watkins (33:33):
Yeah. But, I mean, once it affects the kids,
actually, he he had his son andhis mother leave the city
entirely just for fear of theirsafety. I also saw and this is
in the complaint too, but I hadnoticed UMG published the the
recordings on all thesedifferent platforms, YouTube,

(33:54):
Spotify, Apple, I mean,etcetera, etcetera, they added
this accompanying image, andanyone that listens to or views
that that stream, it's they'regonna see this image, and it's
an aerial view of Drake'sToronto home covered in the
icons that are used

Jack Sanker (34:12):
in Oh, yeah.

Danessa Watkins (34:13):
The public safety apps like citizen

Jack Sanker (34:14):
Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (34:15):
That would identify child sex offender
residency.

Jack Sanker (34:18):
That was on that was the, like, AL Mart for the
single.

Danessa Watkins (34:20):
Right. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly.

Jack Sanker (34:22):
I mean, that whole thing back and forth was, like,
you know I mean, obviously, itescalated, like, to a point
that's, like, too far, but therelike, don't even get me started
on, like, you know, what washappening. And it was, like, a
series of, like, escalatingallegations between each other.
And, you know, like, I mean,Drake said things about I mean,

(34:45):
I feel like let me explain rapto you. Like, I Right. Right.
He, like, said things about,like, Kendrick's family and,
like, all that stuff. And and

Danessa Watkins (34:53):
It wasn't one-sided.

Jack Sanker (34:54):
Yeah. That's the best way to say it. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (34:56):
Mhmm. No. It was definitely going back and
forth. But Drake has said that,UMG's actions, made this
situation rise to the level ofPizzagate is actually what he
That's said. Yeah.
Which I I'm sure most people arefamiliar, but that was the

(35:17):
conspiracy that went viral, Ithink, back in the twenty
sixteen election, presidentialelection where there were claims
that the New York PoliceDepartment discovered a
pedophile ring that was linkedto Democrats. We heard all about
Anthony Weiner's emails, HillaryClinton's emails.

Jack Sanker (35:34):
Well, Weiner's emails were real.

Danessa Watkins (35:36):
Right. Yes.

Jack Sanker (35:37):
That was not a conspiracy. True. The man has an
issue.

Danessa Watkins (35:41):
Yes. No doubt. But it it obviously led to a lot
of, you know, hate mail andthreats and, backlash and and
whatnot. So, yeah, that's whatDrake is saying that all of
this, they were clear lies basedon their decade I think at least
a decade of knowing Drake. UMGknew that these were false

(36:04):
claims being made by, KendrickLamar, and yet they still did
everything in their power tomake this song success
successful.

(36:26):
Alright. Now the claims that areactually brought. So count one
is a claim of defamation per se,and Drake admits as he must that
he's a public figure. So he hasto show that UMG acted with
actual malice. So in under UMGpublished false statements about

(36:48):
Drake knowing the statementswere false or with reckless
disregard for their truth.
And he, again, just intends tosubstantiate this claim by
siding to his long standinghistory with UMG. I I mean,
there is such a thing asrepublish your liabilities.

Jack Sanker (37:06):
Yeah. I was gonna ask.

Danessa Watkins (37:07):
Yeah. So

Jack Sanker (37:08):
because they're not the speaker here.

Danessa Watkins (37:10):
Right. So if you know some if if I knew that
you published something that wasfalse and I choose I can't bury
my head in the sand. Mhmm. Ialso can't just freely republish
it and say, oh, I was relying onJack. No.
There is such a thing as asrepublish your liability. This
is just such a unique situationbecause they're not they're not

(37:32):
actually saying Kendrick'swords. You know what I mean?
Like, they're just it they'rejust allowing the song to be
played. I don't know.

Jack Sanker (37:39):
Yeah. I mean, well and then he would say, like,
maliciously amplifying it.

Danessa Watkins (37:43):
Right.

Jack Sanker (37:44):
Yeah. And, you know, doing other things like
that to make sure it was itreached boosting it, if you
will.

Danessa Watkins (37:50):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (37:51):
But, yeah, it's it wasn't I mean, the the decision
not to sue Kendrick directly hasgotta be for, like, PR reasons
because that's, like, kind oflike a Right. In this world of
of, like, you know, grudges and,like, almost like an honor
culture type situation, it wouldbe, like, a lame move to do
that, you know, to, like, haveprobably be accused of picking a

(38:14):
fight with him to begin with andthen to sue him for defamation,
you know, after right? Like,notwithstanding if this
escalated to something violentand nasty after the fact. So
that would that's my explanationfor, like, why he didn't sue
Kendrick.

Danessa Watkins (38:26):
I yeah. It's it's clear that he was try like,
just reading the complaint, Ithink it's clear that Drake was
trying to find some commonground with other artists. It's
easy to point at, you know, thethe record label. He's obviously
not the first musician to dothat, you know, to to actually,
record labels have been sued allthe time for mistreating their

(38:47):
artists, but not for the lyricsof another artist. You know?
This this

Jack Sanker (39:07):
them for what? Right. For publishing the song
that everyone knows?

Danessa Watkins (39:10):
Right. Yeah. The

Jack Sanker (39:12):
Super Bowl halftime song?

Danessa Watkins (39:13):
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let me just wrap up
real quick.
So the other claims he'sbringing are harassment in the
second degree, saying that UMGpublished and promoted through a
coordinated campaign to smear,threaten, and discredit Drake
despite Drake's protests. So Iguess he did reach out to them

(39:35):
initially and try to I I don'tknow what he was trying to do.
If he was trying to, negotiate asettlement or get them to stop
so widely promoting it, I thinkthis was before they had
announced that Kendrick wasgonna be the the halftime, show
at the Super Bowl. But eitherway, UMG pretty much said go
pound sand.

Jack Sanker (39:54):
There was a lot of back behind behind the back,
like, legal maneuvering duringthis feud process, I like,
before this song like, Iremember, for example, Drake had
released a song as part of,like, the many, like, songs that
they released during this timethat was, using, AI

(40:17):
reconstructed voices for, like,Tupac and Snoop Dogg.

Danessa Watkins (40:21):
Mhmm.

Jack Sanker (40:22):
And, I mean, allegedly, like, Kendrick and
his quote, unquote, people,like, led the charge on getting
the, the copyright actionthreatened for that or whatever.
And there was so there was,like, this stuff was happening.
The the I wanna say there wasprobably a lot of cease and
desist letters that werehappening before this. Mhmm.
Probably before that song cameout.

(40:43):
Mhmm. Like, you know, it wasn'tthis this probably was not the
first time either one of themconsulted with an attorney.

Danessa Watkins (40:50):
Yeah. I I agree. I think you're right. But
it was all probably morehush-hush behind the scenes.
Behind the scenes.
And then the third cause ofaction was violation of New York
General Business Law sectionthree forty nine. And this is
where it goes into the thecovert actions that UMG was

(41:10):
allegedly UMG was allegedlyusing, like, bots, you know,
streaming the recording onSpotify and then, toting the
number of streams that they weregetting. There's also some,
like, oh, some allegations ofpaying

Jack Sanker (41:25):
a a radio promoter to engage in pay for play.

Danessa Watkins (41:25):
Again, I don't know that promoter to engage in
pay for play. Again, I don'tknow that this is, like, a
shocker that this happens, buteither way, he's he's throwing
those claims at them. So, youknow, I I think Drake I don't
want to say he stepped in ithere, but I just I don't see his

(41:48):
community backing him up in anyway, shape, or form on this.
This. Again, this is just these,you know, these feuds going back
and forth between artists, it'sit's nothing new.
And it's something that Drakehimself has engaged in long
before this particular instance.And I don't know. UmG could try

(42:11):
to argue, you know, I don'tknow, some sort of, like, clean
hands defense. Like, Drake,we've supported you through your
own diss tracks for how manydecades, you know, and and now
because it gets turned on you insuch a way.

Jack Sanker (42:23):
That's very interesting.

Danessa Watkins (42:24):
And they don't have control over Kendrick's
listeners. Like, maybe his fansare just more vigilant. You
know? Is that their fault? Idon't know.
It's it's I mean, this thing

Jack Sanker (42:33):
took on, like, a life of its own, like, on social
media and everything. Like, itwas I mean, people were, like,
waiting, you know, like, for thenext thing to happen. Like, it
was it was, like, a tidal waveof attention and everything
else, which is, like, going tobe, sure, like, algorithmically
boosted by but everyoneinvolved. You know, like, I'm
I'm positive that KendrickKendrick Lamar has tweeted,

(42:56):
like, 10 times in the past tenyears. Right?
Mhmm. Like, five of those tweetswere him dropping these five
diss tracks. And it was, like,the number one, and it was,
like, the number one thing,like, trending thing on Twitter.
Like, I'm I'm sure that theTwitter algorithm was, like,
this is important. Let's boostthis.
So, like, everyone is in theattention game here and, like,
would have, you know, done theirpart at every piece of the

(43:20):
attention sucking supply chainto, to boost this whole
conflict, including, I wouldimagine, Drake songs. Mhmm. You
know?

Danessa Watkins (43:28):
Mhmm. Right.

Jack Sanker (43:29):
So to, like, I to your point, like, that's there's
gonna be some element of, like,tit for tat, unclean hands that
I imagine gets litigated aswell. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (43:38):
And it I mean, of course, I always take it to,
like, the the extent of, like,what does this mean going
forward and, you know, or are wegonna, as lawyers, start
requiring artists to to make adisclaimer? Like, this is art?
Or, you know,

Jack Sanker (43:51):
I also think, you know, what he probably had, you
know, correctly assumed that ifhe would've sued Kendrick,
Kendrick would've countersued.

Danessa Watkins (43:58):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (43:58):
And then you're, like, doing discovery about all
the nasty claims they made abouteach other Mhmm. Which, you
know, is gonna which would bedamaging, I would think,

Danessa Watkins (44:07):
for Yeah. But, ultimately, if you are a
defamation plaintiff, like, thatis what you're inviting.

Jack Sanker (44:13):
Right.

Danessa Watkins (44:13):
You know? You're opening the door into
your reputation. So if this casedoesn't get dismissed, of
course, UMG is gonna be, youknow, going into all of that
discovery. I just at the end ofthe day, this was a very public
rap battle between two peoplewho had platforms, you know, to

(44:35):
to say what they needed to say,to do it in an artistic way or
not. Yeah.
But, you know, Kendrick justfired back over and over and
ended up with the chart topper.And, you know, Drake had an
opportunity to come back and anddidn't. And so he ran to the
court. So

Jack Sanker (44:53):
I mean, he got Sal's shot up, though. I mean,
that's the Sure. That's the

Danessa Watkins (44:56):
I'm not trying to belittle that, of course.

Jack Sanker (44:58):
Right.

Danessa Watkins (44:59):
But,

Jack Sanker (45:00):
But, I mean, this was, like you know, not to
belittle it, but, like, this isthe the nature of this kind of
game. Mhmm. You know, I mean,that's, like, very famously,
like like, Tupac and Biggie and,like, all that stuff like this.
Like, this was, you know I mean,it's it's ridiculous that the
that, like, this type of music,like, music feud, you know, can
escalate to this type of, like,feud, you know, can escalate to

(45:24):
this type of, like, in real lifeviolence. Right?
Yeah. Like, that shouldn'thappen, but, like, it frequently
does. Mhmm. And I think both ofthem are guilty of, like, making
express threats of physicalviolence in their music.

Danessa Watkins (45:37):
Right.

Jack Sanker (45:37):
Like, both of them, so many words said, like, I will
shoot you. I will hurt you. Youknow, whatever.

Danessa Watkins (45:42):
Don't come to my town. You won't leave alive

Jack Sanker (45:43):
or something. Yeah. Like, I like I yes. So, you
know, and and that's just, like,part of it. And I it's yeah.
I mean, I don't know how thatplays out, like because I don't
know what the defense is thenbecause it's, like, you know,
it's not like an assumption ofrisk, but it's, like, you know,
you knew what you're gettingyourself into. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (46:05):
It's it's gonna be interesting to read their
their motion to dismiss. We'llhave to, you know, report more
on that because Yeah. I I'm I'minterested to see what they're
gonna do. Because it's obviouslyit's not the summary judgment
stage. So it's not like they canput forth all of this evidence
showing, no.
We didn't in fact, or orchallenge Drake to show the
evidence that they, you know,took these covert actions to

(46:27):
inflate the popularity of this.So it's gonna have to be just
pure legal arguments that youcannot hold us liable for
defamation.

Jack Sanker (46:36):
Yeah. I mean, so it's defamation then it's a
harassment, which are which aredistinct. And and that's
interesting because thedefamation involves, like, you
know, central claim is that I amnot the thing that I was accused
of being, which is a I mean, Icould say a pedophile. Right?
Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (46:51):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (46:51):
He he like, he has to take that affirmative duty on
and improve that Mhmm. For hiscase to succeed. The harassment,
not so much. Right? You know,like, it's a separate tort that
would be can be proven, withoutnecessarily getting into the
veracity of the statement.

Danessa Watkins (47:11):
Yeah. No. That's more about, their actions
and and promoting, yeah, and andpromoting the music, promoting
that song in particular.

Jack Sanker (47:23):
So, yeah, I mean, we'll see how

Danessa Watkins (47:24):
that plays out, and we'll report more on it. I I
did get a lot of questions fromfriends about, oh my gosh, what
happens post Super Bowl, and itlike, what impact is that gonna
have? I mean, look. KentKendrick Lamar is not a
defendant in this case. So,

Jack Sanker (47:40):
But I'm sure that because he didn't say it.

Danessa Watkins (47:43):
He didn't say the word.

Jack Sanker (47:44):
Didn't say it at the Super Bowl. And I'm sure
that

Danessa Watkins (47:47):
I think the entire crowd said

Jack Sanker (47:49):
Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (47:49):
Definitely said a minor. Yeah. Yeah. But But I
don't know if they said I'm surethey said

Jack Sanker (47:53):
a minor. But I'm I'm sure that when they were
like, hey. You can't say it.Like, you can't say it. Yeah.
Like, I mean right. Like, youcan't, obviously so you can't,
like, you know, use, like,certain profanity. Right? Like,
that's a there's that'saccepted.

Danessa Watkins (48:07):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (48:07):
And and I've separate to that, I'm sure they
were like, you also can't dothis because we do not want to
be dragged into this lawsuit.You know?

Danessa Watkins (48:17):
We

Jack Sanker (48:19):
being who? Maybe Apple Music that produced the
Super Bowl halftime show, maybethe NFL. I mean Mhmm. You know,
it it it for the same reasonsthat the label got sued.

Danessa Watkins (48:27):
If yeah. For taking this republication
stance. Exactly. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (48:30):
Yeah. Mhmm. Exactly. If if that theory has
merit, it would be, I think,equally applicable to you know?
Like, why is he why did he getthe the job in the first place?
Because he had this hit song andthis hit album this year, which
is about Drake being pedophile.So, like It

Danessa Watkins (48:46):
just happens to be about

Jack Sanker (48:47):
So, like, you can't separate one from the other.
Like Mhmm. And so they're like,you put the guy who calls me a
pedophile on your stage andwatched him call me a pedophile
again. Mhmm. Like, that would beyeah.
I mean, that would, I think,would would hook you into
whatever

Danessa Watkins (49:06):
Yeah. It'd be interesting to see. I wonder if
maybe he'll see how the lawsuitwith UMG plays out first

Jack Sanker (49:13):
and

Danessa Watkins (49:13):
then possibly amend or or bring in a a whole
another suit. I mean, ifanything, the Super Bowl just
increased his damages. You know?

Jack Sanker (49:21):
%. So Which are it's another element that's very
interesting too because, like,again, like, the harassment
part, I'm sure he's gonna beable to credibly claim some type
of, oh, I guess, like,emotional, psychological damages
for, like, you know, watching aguy get shot, for example. Like,
that's Yeah. You know, that's,like, recoverable damage. You

(49:42):
know?
But the reputational harm, iswhere the money's at. Right?

Danessa Watkins (49:48):
Mhmm.

Jack Sanker (49:48):
And, like, he went from being, like, Drake to I
mean, I'm I'm sure he'll befine. Don't get me wrong. But
for at least some time, a, like,pariah Yeah. And, like, fairly
or unfairly, you know, wheneveryou wanna you know? So those
damages are tremendous because Ithink he was a billionaire.

(50:09):
Mhmm. It's yeah. It'll be veryinteresting.

Danessa Watkins (50:12):
Mhmm. And I don't think that it's a defense
to say that you made it work.It's not I not I don't think. It
is not a defense to say you madeit work worse by filing this
lawsuit, but the reality is hemay have made it worse by filing
this lawsuit.

Jack Sanker (50:28):
Well, he might have he may have harmed his own
reputation more so. But Yeah.You mentioned this all the time
when you talk about defamationcases. Like, that's that's a
part of it.

Danessa Watkins (50:36):
Right.

Jack Sanker (50:36):
Right. You can't defend your character without
putting your character at stake.

Danessa Watkins (50:41):
Mhmm. Yep. It's a yeah. I'm I'm sure there was a
large cost benefit analysis thatwas performed prior to filing
this, but, I don't know. It'sgonna be interesting to see how
it plays out.
It's definitely one of the firstof its kind, if not the first.

Jack Sanker (50:57):
Well, to your point earlier, it's the first diss
track that was, like, numberone. You know? Right. Like, it
doesn't those usually are, like,b sides on the album Right.
That, you know, that that, youknow, that they're

Danessa Watkins (51:08):
The real fans listen to over and over, but
not, like, mainstream. Uh-huh.

Jack Sanker (51:12):
Like, I I mean, I remember, like like like, Jay Z
and Nas, like like, ether. Andthat was, like, hard to find to
listen to in its day, I think,the late nineties. Like, it was
not, like, promoted. Like, youit was, you know and it's, like,
the quintessential, like, disstrack of its time. You know?
It was not Nas' most infamoussong or Yeah. You know,

(51:35):
whatever. This is kind of adifferent animal.

Danessa Watkins (51:37):
Yeah. My husband's a big Eminem fan, so
he had me sit and listen to thewhole one against Machine Gun
Kelly, like, over and overagain. I was like, okay.

Jack Sanker (51:45):
I got it. Everyone tried getting their own beefs
going after this, and no one hadthe juice because it was, like,
Eminem versus Machine Gun Kelly.It's, like, a little one-sided.
Yeah. Sorry.
Yeah. MGK fans. Yeah. But, like,yeah, Drake and Kendrick, that
was awesome.

Danessa Watkins (51:58):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (51:59):
I mean, again, I don't know anyone would get
hurt, but, like No. You know? II felt like after that, there
was, like, a lot of people therewas a lot of artists who were,
like, airing dirty laundry abouteach other and, like, trying to
catch the hype. And just none ofit had the juice. Like like
because I I mean, at variouspoints, like, Drake, like like,
was, like, threateningKendrick's family, and then

(52:21):
Kendrick was, like, you're apedophile.
Like, the stakes don't get muchhigher than those two claims.
You know? You can't really oneup that. Like like, I'm gonna
hurt I'm gonna, like, hurt orkill your family. Like and then
it's like you and then really hesorry to go down this, but,
like, the, the song that cameout right before, not like us,
meet the family Mhmm.

(52:42):
Was, pretty brutal, where herapped at each individual member
of

Danessa Watkins (52:46):
Meet the Grams. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (52:47):
Sorry. Meet the Grams. Yeah. Mhmm. He he rapped
at each individual member ofDrake's family and then also
wrapped at Drake's allegedsecret secret daughter.
Yeah. Yeah. It was like it waslike like secret daughter of
Drake. Like, I'm sorry. Youryour your father is such a
deadbeat.
Like, it was it was bad. I mean,it was great. But,

Danessa Watkins (53:07):
Kendrick Lamar goes hard. I mean, we saw that
at the Super Bowl. Like, haveyou watched all of those videos
afterwards tearing apart?Obviously, there was a lot of
cultural and Yeah. Importantsymbolism that came out of it.
But when you look at the littledigs on Drake that were mixed in
there too, it was like, woah.Okay.

Jack Sanker (53:24):
One of I mean, this is not what people listen to the
show for, but my one of my myfavorite, like, reoccurring bits
on, SNL is, like, the end of theyear. Do you have you seen this
with Weekend Update at the endof the year?

Danessa Watkins (53:35):
Oh, yeah. Where they

Jack Sanker (53:36):
They trade jokes?

Danessa Watkins (53:37):
Yeah. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (53:37):
Yeah. So Colin Jost, Michael Che are the hosts
of Weekend Update on SNL. And atthe end of the year, they their
gifts to each other are jokesthat they have written for each
other to tell. And the runninggag, one of them is Michael Che
always writes really horriblyracist jokes for Colin Jost to
read.

Danessa Watkins (53:54):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (53:54):
And that's, like, that's funny. But one of the
most recent

Danessa Watkins (53:58):
Funny because it's a white man.

Jack Sanker (53:59):
Yes. Yes. Yes. Like, he's like, you're watching
the pain on his face. He's like,I'm gonna get Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (54:03):
I'm I'm

Jack Sanker (54:03):
I can't believe I'm being He's

Danessa Watkins (54:04):
gotta get pummeled for this. Yep.

Jack Sanker (54:06):
Well and Colin Jost got him back, like, this year or
whatever, a couple months ago bymaking Michael Che talk shit
about Kendrick. And it was likelike, he I don't think he's hot.
Yeah. The joke was like, youknow, I'm Michael Che. I'm on
Drake's side.
I think Kendrick's a bitch. I'mannouncing our beef now, and

(54:27):
Mike and Michael Chase, like,like, visibly upset having to
read this. He's like, I do notwanna mess with Kendrick Lamar.
Like, I do not wanna do this.So, I mean, there's a lot of
cultural purchase in this, that,you know, it's we'll see.
Now we're boiling it down to aboring lawsuit.

Danessa Watkins (54:42):
Yep. Now I know. Well, we'll keep you
updated. See you on this one,please.

Jack Sanker (54:51):
Thanks everyone for listening. We're glad to be back
after a short Hiatus. Rememberyou can find us on Apple
podcasts, YouTube, Spotify,wherever you get your shows. We
broadcast every other week andwe will talk to you soon.