Litigation Nation

Danessa Watkins: 00:04

Welcome to Litigation Nation. I'm your host, Danessa Watkins, here with my co host, Jack Sanker. We are back from a short hiatus to bring you some of the latest, greatest, most exciting legal news from across the country. Jack, what are you gonna talk about today?

Jack Sanker: 00:19

We're talking tariffs. What are they? The the new ones that the Trump administration has just recently as of, like, yesterday handed down. What power exactly does the president have to do this? Why are they important?

Jack Sanker: 00:31

And, you know, what type of businesses are gonna be affected, and what can those businesses do about the tariffs?

Danessa Watkins: 00:36

Alright. And I'm gonna cover the defamation lawsuit that is currently rocking the music industry. This is Drake's claims against his record label for promoting and publishing Kendrick Lamar's diss track 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 shows every two weeks, and you can find us wherever you get your podcasts, 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 show is not going to be a beat by beat, coverage of everything that the Trump administration does. I think that would kinda goes against the mission of the show and would get pretty boring pretty quick. But there is a lot to talk about. And, the good news for us is that the man does make it easy for content creators. So, we are gonna be talking about the new tariffs, just, handed down by the White House today.

Jack Sanker: 01:46

What are they? First of all, what power does the president have to actually do these things? Why are they important? And then, businesses that I think you can reasonably project that are gonna be affected by these tariffs, what can they do in their everyday business practices to protect themselves from some of the downsides? So we'll start with the tariffs.

Jack Sanker: 02:07

What when I say the tariffs, what are we talking about here? For this, I'm gonna rely on a couple of recent publications, but in particular, I'll shout out one of our partners Ngosong Fonkem. We are recording this today on 02/13/2025. And, as recently as February 10, February eleventh, president Trump announced additional tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. So going to Ngosong's recent article that was posted on our website, www.amundsondavislaw.com, I'm getting a lot of this information from there.

Jack Sanker: 02:42

What are the tariffs? Effective March 12, so coming up, all steel and aluminum imports to The United States, are going to be subject to a new increased tariff. This tariff is going to be 25%, which is an increase from 10%. This is for steel and aluminum imports, like, I suppose, as raw materials, but also derivative articles, which would include, you know, widgets, items like that that contain steel and aluminum. Derivative articles, only the steel or aluminum portion will be subject to these tariffs.

Jack Sanker: 03:19

And as we record today I mean, actually, a couple hours ago when I was putting together my notes for the show today, Trump also announced, reciprocal tariffs on all other countries. And this would include the value added tax, the the VAT tax in the EU. So all these are in addition to the tariffs from about a month ago, the flat tariffs that were announced against, Mexico and Canada, which some of which have been walked back, and also those against China, etcetera. So this portion of the podcast today, if your supply chain relies on international imports of any kind, and many do, my practice area in particular, which construction, is gonna be hit hard. And I'm not saying this is a political statement.

Jack Sanker: 04:07

There are plenty of, Trump supporters in in, you know, my industry who are, not happy about this. And, what you can expect to see in terms of shortages and price hikes as a result of these tariffs. So, what are the president's powers with respect to tariffs? Kind respect to tariffs? Kind of a brief history there.

Jack Sanker: 04:32

Most of it, I actually didn't know this, is statutory. It's not directly coming from the constitution. I just kind of assumed because my entire life the president has dabbled with this stuff and I never really looked into it. But, most of the tariff power that we see discussed in terms of, like, you know, a new administration comes in, announces a new policy, whatever, it's power that was expressly delegated to the executive by congress, over the past, 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 is being relied on for these new, steel and, aluminum tariffs. It it unilaterally allows the president to hike tariffs based on, recommendation from the secretary of commerce, which is a position that's, like, appointed by the president and can, like, you know, you can easily put a yes person in there. Secretary of commerce has to recommend it first, that the importation of an item is deemed to, quote, threaten or impair national security. Once you have that recommendation, the president can go ahead and, you know, do what he wants with with tariffs.

Jack Sanker: 05:46

And that's this has actually happened, I remember, in 02/2018. Trump proposed the original 10% tariff on steel, and they've remained 10% until now. 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, what was going on at that time?

Jack Sanker: 06:07

Yeah. It it, that's a great question. It it was dealing with the Kennedy administration's kind of of global trade, negotiations that the, the that JFK was doing at the time with, like, I don't remember exactly, but think of, like, you know, like, NAFTA or one of these, like, big trade deals or whatever. The Kennedy administration was doing that, I think, with Western Europe. Mhmm.

Jack Sanker: 06:33

And as a way to get, the president the power to, like, unilaterally negotiate on those terms, Congress passed this version of the, Trade Expansion Act. Got it. There was another one. There's been, I mean, there's been a few. There's one from 1930.

Jack Sanker: 06:50

There's, one from 1974. And there's been, you know, some tweaks around the edges from Congress all the while, but it's a a pretty broad delegation of congressional power. The constitution kind of unambiguously gives this tariff power to congress. Article one section eight says the congress shall have the power to lay and collect dues, duties, impose and excises, but all dues imposed and excises shall be uniform throughout The United States. And then there's a separate part of the constitution which bars the states from doing their own, import tariffs, which would be article one section 10.

Jack Sanker: 07:29

No state shall without the consent of congress, lay any imposed or duties on exports or imports except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws. So by and large, it's been interpreted to mean that tariffs are under the express purview of congress. But, again, they've delegated it via statute to the president. Mostly, you know, it seems like for geopolitical reasons over the years. So the 1962, Trade Expansion Act is the basis for this current round of, tariff hikes, on the grounds that 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.

Jack Sanker: 08:12

If that seems like a stretch to you, it doesn't matter because it's already been challenged and upheld, when Trump did it the first time around in 02/2018. So, by all accounts, he's allowed to do this, and, you know, I'm sure folks will challenge it again on different grounds, whatever, but, you know, this is not outside the bounds of, you know, permitted executive action at this point. So, the I mentioned the 1974 trade act that kind of expanded the presidential power. And I relied on an article published, by the Center for Strategic International Studies in October of twenty twenty four about for kind of, like, the CliffsNotes of, on some of this legislation. And I I thought that the delegation of congressionally enumerated powers to the president via statute was, you know, worth mentioning in this discussion in light of some of the renewed interest in, you know, congressional delegation of power, like, we've we've covered in the past, like, the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, for example.

Jack Sanker: 09:09

And, overturning of the Chevron doctrine, 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 congressional authority, to the, you know, bureaucratic blob or whatever you wanna call it. So, so this is another example of that, by the way, of delegation of power, but it's already been upheld by the courts. I think it's gonna be fine. Why is this important?

Jack Sanker: 09:37

If, you know, if you haven't already thought about this or don't know, it is because it's going to undoubtedly, in the short to medium term, raise the price on, you know, things that are imported in The United States. Eight And A Half so, for example, the tariffs on Canadian imports, which I don't they were paused and then they may be coming back or whatever. Set that aside. Assume that they're in effect now. 8 and a half billion dollars of wood products are are imported into United States in 2023.

Jack Sanker: 10:11

Of that 8 and a half billion, like, 5,800,000,000.0 comes from Canada. Right? So 70% of wood products that come into The US is coming from Canada and would now be subject to a 25% tariff that is going to be passed to the consumer one way or the other. Right. Whether in forms of shortages because people can't afford to import it or price hikes because the importers have to, absorb that price and someone's gonna pay it.

Jack Sanker: 10:38

The other example would be $456,000,000 worth of lime and gypsum, which is imported imported from, all over the world, but most of which comes from Mexico. That 456,000,000, 352,000,000 comes from Mexico, Seventy One Percent. So that's subject to 25% taxes. And these are the tariffs that are put on those two countries specifically, not the steel and, aluminum ones, but, you know, you get the idea. Mhmm.

Jack Sanker: 11:08

Regarding the steel and aluminum, tariffs, it's causing 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, that are, you know, that don't like this. Right? So for example, the, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, said just today, the administration's move to impose 25 tariffs on all steel and aluminum products imports into United States runs totally counter to parenthetical previously stated goal of lowering housing costs.

Jack Sanker: 11:57

By raising homebuilding costs, deterring new developments, and frustrating efforts to rebuild in the wake of natural disasters, ultimately, consumers will 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 whether you wanna take on a new project, of course, whether I can afford to build my new building hospital or house or whatever it is. But, also, of the many hundreds of thousands of ongoing projects that, these materials don't get bought all at once. Like, if you're building a skyscraper, you are purchasing materials along the way.

Jack Sanker: 12:40

And, what happens when the price of those materials goes up? 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 know this. The contracts that are typically used do account for these types of things generally. Right? You can do I mean, there's there's change order provisions. There's, force majeure clauses, different contingencies, allowance provisions, things like that.

Jack Sanker: 13:10

What's interesting is that most of these types of price adjustment provisions that are in, really all kinds of contracts, but I'm talking more specific to, construction contracts here. It's coming from, AIA form documents. AIA is like it's been publishing boilerplate contracts that you can buy and incorporate into whatever you're using. Boilerplate contracts that you can buy and incorporate into whatever you're using, for, like, a hundred and thirty years. And the AIA is like it's most trade groups, rely on the AIA for, you know, my boilerplate contract for x, y, and z.

Jack Sanker: 13:48

They've been vetted. They've been litigated. Lawyers have looked at them for years. They revised them as the court's rule on different provisions. It's it's kind of like the the easy but also really, really good way to get yourselves whatever contract documents you meet you need.

Jack Sanker: 14:04

The AIA does not have contractual provisions available, which that would deal with the unexpected price swings happening to materials, during the course of ongoing construction, as a result of, like, executive action. So so, arguably, arguably, a lot of the things I mentioned earlier, like, the first major clauses, how you can deal with things over change orders, things like that is not going to be applicable here if you're a supplier or a builder or a subcontractor who all of a sudden, you know, can't procure or has to pay through the nose to procure materials that you would need to do your contract. There's just there's nothing like boiler plate that's available. What that means for, for these folks is that you're going to have to, either eat the cost. So if you're in an ongoing project, you sign the contract, you're kind of, I mean, you're kinda screwed.

Jack Sanker: 15:05

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 already getting, like, phone calls about this. So it's you know, we have builders who are like, I don't even know if I can begin work on this because I don't know what's gonna happen. I mean, the tariffs were announced this week. Prices have already you've seen, manufacturing companies put up statements of, like, we're gonna increase our prices, but, like, not everyone's done that.

Jack Sanker: 15:39

So you don't know where it hits you 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 statutory empowerment of the executive to increase tariffs is time limited. Like, I I wanna say it's a hundred and fifty days for certain things. I do not believe that the, quote, unquote, national natural national, security justification that's being, used here has a time limit. Okay. So it's like it'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. So if you're in the middle of a project, I mean, this is a this is a problem. We're already seeing it. But if you're contemplating bidding on on a job or, you know, developing something or or or whatever, what you need to be doing, and you're not gonna be able to just pull from your library of AIA contracts to to properly protect yourself, unfortunately.

Jack Sanker: 16:59

You're going to have to effectively get custom language added, by an attorney, in the form of what we would call price escalation clauses. And these are similar to contingencies, but they kind of allow for a greater range of, like, triggering events. Like, it doesn't have to be a hurricane, for example, or or anything like that. You have to agree on what that triggering event is gonna be. And what we've seen people, we we saw people do this in 2018 with the initial, steel tariffs was adding price escalation clauses into their contracts, 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 measured by, reliable, authority. Like, what I've seen is the, Bureau of Labor Statistics, they publish the, producer price index, the PPI, which can tell you, you know, whether the price of something has gone up by a certain percent over a certain amount of time. And you can include reference that in the contract and say, like, if the price of steel goes up 10%, you know, we are going to typically see cost sharing then. So, like, you know, is the subcontractor that is, expected to, expected to bring the materials to the project, beyond a certain point of price, you can build in your contract. We're gonna share that that new added cost, you know, between ourselves and the owner or between ourselves in the general or however you wanna do it.

Jack Sanker: 18:26

So owner or between ourselves in the general or however you wanna do it. So, like, what it what I've seen and what I think people are gonna do is, include price escalation terms that will trigger if the price of steel increases by, like, 10% or so as measured by PPI. That's where we kind of foresee this going in terms of, you know, builders on the ground and what they're gonna do about this. But it ultimately introduces a quite a bit of volatility because we also you know, we just saw the tariffs get walked back immediately.

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 just we saw what supply chain ripples do to the economy during COVID and, you know, which to to some extent was unavoidable. Mhmm. And, this is, like, kind of intentional. So Mhmm.

Jack Sanker: 19:26

So we'll see is my is my, at least kind of where I'll I'll end this at. But there are ways to protect yourself so you just aren't gonna be able to rely on business as usual, with respect to these new supply chain issues.

Danessa Watkins: 19:42

I mean, the contractors' issues is one thing, and, obviously, they'll have some negotiating power, I would imagine. But I I hadn't even thought about the, like, what just happened in LA and all the fires. Yeah.

Jack Sanker: 19:54

Oh, yeah.

Danessa Watkins: 19:54

Like, all of those families now trying to rebuild or insurance companies or whatever. You know? Like, is this gonna increase all of our insurance as a result too?

Jack Sanker: 20:02

%. I mean Yeah. I mean, right. Like, the raw materials that go into that go into new construction go up, then, like, the cost of the rebuild goes up. And Mhmm.

Jack Sanker: 20:09

I mean, potentially, the the cost the value of your property goes up then because the resale value is higher, because there's less housing being built because it's more expensive. So you're paying more property taxes. I mean, like, it's a lot of downstream effects here. And I would posit that we were not in a great shape in this country broadly in terms of housing construction anyways. And this is, you know, this is gonna, at least in the short to medium term, gonna exacerbate, I think, a lot of those problems.

Jack Sanker: 20:38

Mhmm. But, but that's what we gotta deal with. So for those of you listening that have concerns, 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 right now, I would argue. Well, if you haven't heard, there is a current claim being brought by Aubrey Drake Graham, better known as Drake, against UMG Recordings Inc, which is a record label that he has been part of for, I think, over a decade now, that was just filed in the Southern District Of New York. Now to go back a little bit about what this case is about in case you haven't been, you know, following anything social media wise for for a while. Back in I wanna say it was April, maybe March of twenty twenty four, there was a feud that broke out between Kendrick Lamar Duckworth, better known as Kendrick Lamar, and Drake.

Danessa Watkins: 21:45

And it began when, Drake and J Cole and other artists released a track where Cole had crowned himself, Drake, and Lamar as the big three of rap. Lamar later put out, his own or he I'm sorry. He was a a guest verse on a track by Future and Metro Boomin song like that, and he claimed no to the big three. It's just me. Over several weeks after that, Lamar and Drake released several distracts against one another.

Danessa Watkins: 22:17

There were accusations by Drake against Lamar that he was a domestic abuser. He had implied that Lamar's one of Lamar's children was fathered by one of his close friends, and then Lamar shot back at Drake calling him a pedophile and a colonizer exploiting hip hop culture. So all this happened pretty quickly and escalated pretty quickly and actually resulted in, I guess, your just your classic feud of people weighing in on both sides, you know, people trying to 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 could not 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 it was 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 he received a lot of hate mail. I'll get into to some of the the violence that escalated thereafter. But then in September, I believe it was actually September seventh of twenty twenty four, Lamar announced that he was performing at 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 a little 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 did read 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 he performed 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 was just like, this is Yeah. I don't know how you come back from this Drake. 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, the song is pretty catchy, so there's that. But, yeah, eventually, Drake did end up reaching out to UMG. I don't know that he ever reached out to Kendrick Lamar's team.

Danessa Watkins: 24:34

I think he was just focused on the record label. And there was some pre suit, litigation matters that I'll get to. But finally, on January fifteenth of twenty twenty five, so three weeks, four week yeah. Three weeks before the Super Bowl. Drake did in fact file an 81 page complaint in New York, solely against UMG Recordings Inc.

Danessa Watkins: 24:58

Now that is currently pending. I did look up the docket, and I saw that UMG is is scheduled to respond to that complaint. They already said they're filing motion to dismiss by March 17. So I think that briefing will probably be finished up in April or May, so we should have an update.

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 in the public are kind of confused about that and and why he made that choice. You think of defamation, it's it's the person speaking, which, you know, which is Kendrick. But, no, he went after 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, I would say, coming from my world, is kind of like a work of art. Cool. There are there are photos in there.

Danessa Watkins: 26:01

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 Lucien Grange, who is the chief executive officer of UMG. And he allegedly made this quote, not even allegedly. I've seen it in the pleadings. He made it on March twenty fifth of twenty twenty four.

Danessa Watkins: 26:31

So within a year of filing this lawsuit, the CEO says, quote, a single lie can destroy a reputation of integrity. And while it takes years to build a reputation, it can be ruined in five minutes. Then the complaint starts right off with this paragraph. In the middle of the night on 05/07/2024, an armed group of assailants drove up to the Toronto house in which Drake and his family resided. Drake was inside.

Danessa Watkins: 26:59

The car stopped in front of the residence. Someone yelled, fuck Drake, and at least one gunman began to open fire. One bullet went through the security gate and hit Drake's front door. Another bullet struck and wounded a security guard who was also one of Drake's friends. While the car drove away, Drake and others in the house summoned help for the security guard and did everything possible to keep him alive.

Danessa Watkins: 27:21

During the nearly thirty minutes it took for the nearly thirty minutes it took for the ambulance to arrive, Drake and others labored to keep the man alive 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 security guard arrived at the hospital, surgeons, plural, worked quickly to remove the bullet, stop the bleeding, and save his life.

Danessa Watkins: 27:48

Though it took days for his condition to stabilize, thankfully, the security guard survived. The very next day, 05/08/2024, a different intruder used his bare hands to dig a hole under the security fence surrounding Drake's Toronto house. He managed to dig deep enough to squeeze through and enter Drake's property. Fortunately, Drake's home security guards caught him before he was able to cause any physical harm, although the trespasser managed to yell racist slurs and threats against Drake 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 attempt happened. In the two decades leading up to May of twenty twenty 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 approximately caused by UMG's actions leading up to and on 05/04/2024, end quote. 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 that he claims he's still, enduring today, and puts all the blame on UMG.

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 of complaint. Right. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins: 29:12

So everyone, I think, it was kind of like, alright. Why are you going after a record label that seems a little odd? Obviously, when someone puts out music, it's you know, there are a lot of people involved. It's not just the record label that are promoting this. However, Drake is claiming that UMG UMG took actions that exceeded what they would have done in normal, circumstances, cause it, unprecedented steps to, for example, remove the recording's copyright restrictions on YouTube, thereby whitelisting the recording to ensure that content creators would republish it broadly.

Danessa Watkins: 29:55

Some of these claims are on information and belief, but say 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 actions that were totally outside of the norm Sure.

Danessa Watkins: 30:11

Just for this particular song. And Drake's argument is that they did that because well, for money purposes, but also they understood at all times the harm that it was gonna cause. Yeah. He claims that the agents within UMG put a thumb on the scale by offering financial incentives to third parties, trying to up the streams on platforms. They were using 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 of royalties from Spotify by making AI generated music and then making 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's model 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 upon information belief. So before he filed this lawsuit, he did file two, I guess, pre litigation actions in state court, one in New York and one in Texas, where he was trying to, essentially get discovery on, on all of this and and what tactics they were using 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 of its initial release, the track garnered 96,000,000 streams, which broke the record for the most streamed song over a seven day period. And then on October seventh of last year, it broke another record with the most weeks at number one on Billboard's hot rap songs at twenty one weeks.

Danessa Watkins: 32:04

So, I mean, we're not you know, this whole idea of of rap battles is not anything that's new to us. However, for a a diss track to gain this much publicity, and, I think that's, you know, just sets a new standard for sure.

Jack Sanker: 32:19

Yeah.

Danessa Watkins: 32:31

So all of this, Drake alleges, culminated in UMG making the most egregious step of using its leverage, their professional connections, etcetera, to make sure that Kendrick was able to be the the, Super Bowl halftime performer. I'm not sure if that allegation was actually made on information belief because I'm not sure how that he's gonna have that information. But Sure. Either way, we'll get into how that played out in a minute. But as far as damages, Drake is claiming that UMG's intentional conduct destroyed his reputation, that listeners believe Kendrick Lamar's lyrics to be truthful.

Danessa Watkins: 33:16

So Drake has just received an avalanche of online hate mail. As we mentioned in the beginning, it's escalated to the violent intrusions on his home. He's had to pull his son out of elementary school in Toronto and arrange 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 and his mother leave the city entirely just for fear of their safety. I also saw and this is in the complaint too, but I had noticed UMG published the the recordings on all these different platforms, YouTube, Spotify, Apple, I mean, etcetera, etcetera, they added this accompanying image, and anyone that listens to or views that that stream, it's they're gonna see this image, and it's an aerial view of Drake's Toronto 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, it escalated, like, to a point that's, like, too far, but there like, don't even get me started on, like, you know, what was happening. And it was, like, a series of, like, escalating allegations between each other. And, you know, like, I mean, Drake said things about I mean, I feel like let me explain rap to you. Like, I Right. Right.

Jack Sanker: 34:49

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 of Pizzagate is actually what he That's said. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins: 35:14

Which I I'm sure most people are familiar, but that was the conspiracy that went viral, I think, back in the twenty sixteen election, presidential election where there were claims that the New York Police Department discovered a pedophile ring that was linked to Democrats. We heard all about Anthony Weiner's emails, Hillary Clinton'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 and threats and, backlash and and whatnot. So, yeah, that's what Drake is saying that all of this, they were clear lies based on their decade I think at least a decade of knowing Drake. UMG knew that these were false claims being made by, Kendrick Lamar, and yet they still did everything in their power to make this song success successful.

Danessa Watkins: 36:26

Alright. Now the claims that are actually 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 has to show that UMG acted with actual malice. So in under UMG published false statements about Drake knowing the statements were false or with reckless disregard for their truth.

Danessa Watkins: 36:54

And he, again, just intends to substantiate this claim by siding to his long standing history with UMG. I I mean, there is such a thing as republish 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 was false and I choose I can't bury my head in the sand. Mhmm. I also can't just freely republish it and say, oh, I was relying on Jack. No.

Danessa Watkins: 37:24

There is such a thing as as republish your liability. This is just such a unique situation because they're not they're not actually saying Kendrick's words. You know what I mean? Like, they're just it they're just 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 it reached 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 has gotta be for, like, PR reasons because that's, like, kind of like a Right. In this world of of, like, you know, grudges and, like, almost like an honor culture type situation, it would be, like, a lame move to do that, you know, to, like, have probably be accused of picking a fight with him to begin with and then to sue him for defamation, you know, after right? Like, notwithstanding if this escalated to something violent and nasty after the fact. So that would that's my explanation for, 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, I think it's clear that Drake was trying to find some common ground with other artists. It's easy to point at, you know, the the record label. He's obviously not the first musician to do that, you know, to to actually, record labels have been sued all the time for mistreating their artists, but not for the lyrics of another artist. You know?

Danessa Watkins: 38:53

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.

Danessa Watkins: 39:18

So the other claims he's bringing are harassment in the second degree, saying that UMG published and promoted through a coordinated campaign to smear, threaten, and discredit Drake despite Drake's protests. So I guess he did reach out to them initially and try to I I don't know what he was trying to do. If he was trying to, negotiate a settlement or get them to stop so widely promoting it, I think this was before they had announced that Kendrick was gonna be the the halftime, show at the Super Bowl. But either way, UMG pretty much said go pound sand.

Jack Sanker: 39:54

There was a lot of back behind behind the back, like, legal maneuvering during this feud process, I like, before this song like, I remember, for example, Drake had released a song as part of, like, the many, like, songs that they released during this time that was, using, AI 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 action threatened for that or whatever. And there was so there was, like, this stuff was happening. The the I wanna say there was probably a lot of cease and desist letters that were happening before this. Mhmm. Probably before that song came out.

Jack Sanker: 40:43

Mhmm. Like, you know, it wasn't this this probably was not the first time either one of them consulted with an attorney.

Danessa Watkins: 40:50

Yeah. I I agree. I think you're right. But it was all probably more hush-hush behind the scenes. Behind the scenes.

Danessa Watkins: 40:59

And then the third cause of action was violation of New York General Business Law section three forty nine. And this is where it goes into the the covert actions that UMG was allegedly UMG was allegedly using, like, bots, you know, streaming the recording on Spotify and then, toting the number of streams that they were getting. There's also some, like, oh, some allegations of paying

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't know that this is, like, a shocker that this happens, but either way, he's he's throwing those claims at them. So, you know, I I think Drake I don't want to say he stepped in it here, but I just I don't see his community backing him up in any way, shape, or form on this. This. Again, this is just these, you know, these feuds going back and forth between artists, it's it's nothing new.

Danessa Watkins: 42:02

And it's something that Drake himself has engaged in long before this particular instance. And I don't know. UmG could try to argue, you know, I don't know, some sort of, like, clean hands defense. Like, Drake, we've supported you through your own diss tracks for how many decades, you know, and and now because it gets turned on you in such 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 fans are just more vigilant. You know? Is that their fault? I don't know.

Danessa Watkins: 42:32

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, it was I mean, people were, like, waiting, you know, like, for the next thing to happen. Like, it was it was, like, a tidal wave of attention and everything else, which is, like, going to be, sure, like, algorithmically boosted by but everyone involved. You know, like, I'm I'm positive that Kendrick Kendrick Lamar has tweeted, like, 10 times in the past ten years. Right?

Jack Sanker: 42:58

Mhmm. Like, five of those tweets were 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 the Twitter algorithm was, like, this is important. Let's boost this.

Jack Sanker: 43:11

So, like, everyone is in the attention game here and, like, would have, you know, done their part at every piece of the attention sucking supply chain to, to boost this whole conflict, including, I would imagine, 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 as well. 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 we gonna, as lawyers, start requiring artists to to make a disclaimer? 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 if he 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 about each other Mhmm. Which, you know, is gonna which would be damaging, I would think,

Danessa Watkins: 44:07

for Yeah. But, ultimately, if you are a defamation plaintiff, like, that is 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 case doesn't get dismissed, of course, UMG is gonna be, you know, going into all of that discovery. I just at the end of the day, this was a very public rap battle between two people who had platforms, you know, to to say what they needed to say, to do it in an artistic way or not. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins: 44:40

But, you know, Kendrick just fired back over and over and ended up with the chart topper. And, you know, Drake had an opportunity to come back and and didn'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 is the 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 this type of, like, in real life violence. Right?

Jack Sanker: 45:28

Yeah. Like, that shouldn't happen, but, like, it frequently does. Mhmm. And I think both of them are guilty of, like, making express threats of physical violence 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. You know, 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.

Jack Sanker: 45:51

I mean, I don't know how that plays out, like because I don't know what the defense is then because it's, like, you know, it's not like an assumption of risk, but it's, like, you know, you knew what you're getting yourself into. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins: 46:05

It's it's gonna be interesting to read their their motion to dismiss. We'll have to, you know, report more on that because Yeah. I I'm I'm interested to see what they're gonna do. Because it's obviously it's not the summary judgment stage. So it's not like they can put forth all of this evidence showing, no.

Danessa Watkins: 46:20

We didn't in fact, or or challenge Drake to show the evidence that they, you know, took these covert actions to inflate the popularity of this. So it's gonna have to be just pure legal arguments that you cannot hold us liable for defamation.

Jack Sanker: 46:36

Yeah. I mean, so it's defamation then it's a harassment, which are which are distinct. And and that's interesting because the defamation involves, like, you know, central claim is that I am not the thing that I was accused of being, which is a I mean, I could 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 his case to succeed. The harassment, not so much. Right? You know, like, it's a separate tort that would be can be proven, without necessarily getting into the veracity of the statement.

Danessa Watkins: 47:11

Yeah. No. That's more about, their actions and and promoting, yeah, and and promoting 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 from friends about, oh my gosh, what happens post Super Bowl, and it like, what impact is that gonna have? I mean, look. Kent Kendrick 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 sure they 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.

Jack Sanker: 48:01

Like, I mean right. Like, you can't, obviously so you can't, like, you know, use, like, certain profanity. Right? Like, that's a there's that's accepted.

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 do this 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, maybe the NFL. I mean Mhmm. You know, it it it for the same reasons that 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 get the the job in the first place?

Jack Sanker: 48:39

Because he had this hit song and this 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 and watched him call me a pedophile again. Mhmm. Like, that would be yeah.

Jack Sanker: 49:01

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 lawsuit with 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, if anything, 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 be able to credibly claim some type of, oh, I guess, like, emotional, psychological damages for, like, you know, watching a guy get shot, for example. Like, that's Yeah. You know, that's, like, recoverable damage. You know?

Jack Sanker: 49:44

But the reputational harm, is where 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 be fine. Don't get me wrong. But for at least some time, a, like, pariah Yeah. And, like, fairly or unfairly, you know, whenever you wanna you know? So those damages are tremendous because I think he was a billionaire.

Jack Sanker: 50:09

Mhmm. It's yeah. It'll be very interesting.

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 made it work worse by filing this lawsuit, but the reality is he may 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 defamation cases. 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 that was performed prior to filing this, but, I don't know. It's gonna be interesting to see how it plays out.

Danessa Watkins: 50:53

It's definitely one of the first of its kind, if not the first.

Jack Sanker: 50:57

Well, to your point earlier, it's the first diss track that was, like, number one. You know? Right. Like, it doesn't those usually are, like, b sides on the album Right. That, you know, that that, you know, 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. And that was, like, hard to find to listen to in its day, I think, the late nineties. Like, it was not, like, promoted. Like, you it was, you know and it's, like, the quintessential, like, diss track of its time. You know?

Jack Sanker: 51:31

It was not Nas' most infamous song or Yeah. You know, whatever. This is kind of a different animal.

Danessa Watkins: 51:37

Yeah. My husband's a big Eminem fan, so he had me sit and listen to the whole one against Machine Gun Kelly, like, over and over again. I was like, okay.

Jack Sanker: 51:45

I got it. Everyone tried getting their own beefs going after this, and no one had the juice because it was, like, Eminem versus Machine Gun Kelly. It's, like, a little one-sided. Yeah. Sorry.

Jack Sanker: 51:54

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? I I felt like after that, there was, like, a lot of people there was a lot of artists who were, like, airing dirty laundry about each other and, like, trying to catch the hype. And just none of it had the juice. Like like because I I mean, at various points, like, Drake, like like, was, like, threatening Kendrick's family, and then Kendrick was, like, you're a pedophile.

Jack Sanker: 52:22

Like, the stakes don't get much higher than those two claims. You know? You can't really one up that. Like like, I'm gonna hurt I'm gonna, like, hurt or kill your family. Like and then it's like you and then really he sorry to go down this, but, like, the, the song that came out right before, not like us, meet the family Mhmm.

Jack Sanker: 52:42

Was, pretty brutal, where he rapped 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 of Drake's family and then also wrapped at Drake's alleged secret secret daughter.

Jack Sanker: 52:56

Yeah. Yeah. It was like it was like like secret daughter of Drake. Like, I'm sorry. Your your your father is such a deadbeat.

Jack Sanker: 53:02

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, have you watched all of those videos afterwards tearing apart? Obviously, there was a lot of cultural and Yeah. Important symbolism that came out of it.

Danessa Watkins: 53:19

But when you look at the little digs 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 my favorite, like, reoccurring bits on, SNL is, like, the end of the year. Do you have you seen this with Weekend Update at the end of 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 at the end of the year, they their gifts to each other are jokes that they have written for each other to tell. And the running gag, one of them is Michael Che always writes really horribly racist 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 by making Michael Che talk shit about Kendrick. And it was like like, he I don't think he's hot. Yeah. The joke was like, you know, I'm Michael Che. I'm on Drake's side.

Jack Sanker: 54:23

I think Kendrick's a bitch. I'm announcing our beef now, and Mike and Michael Chase, like, like, visibly upset having to read this. He's like, I do not wanna 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.

Jack Sanker: 54:40

Now we're boiling it down to a boring 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. Remember you can find us on Apple podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, wherever you get your shows. We broadcast every other week and we will talk to you soon.