Let me guess. It is not even in the top 50 on Spotify, right? 😂 Jesus Christ

Another one for Netflix. Complete circus #thewest

Dude…that’s tough.

Must be a nightmare for UMG’s lawyers. Kudos to the Democrats tho😅

Please, I beg you, help me find Mr. Big Me guy or the girl with 3000 paid grammy awards on this list

So many producers for one track JEEZ. If this is legit, then where on earth is 40?

Okay, he also posted on his timeline. Guys, I think it’s tea time. Better not be Stake dear Lord 🙏🏻

I will deadass riot if this is again something Stake-related

Yeah, makes full sense now.

Drake’s influence is written all over Jack’s discography.

UMG's motion to dismiss is RIDICULOUS on so many levels. Let me give you some context:👇🧵

At the end of the day, UMG’s defense boils down to this: “We didn’t do anything, but if we did, it’s not our fault, and if it is, we have the right to do it anyway.” That’s not a legal argument, it’s a toddler caught stealing cookies, mouth full of crumbs, swearing they didn’t

UMG’s motion to dismiss is the legal equivalent of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat and insisting it was never there to begin with. First, they argue that diss tracks are just entertainment—until it comes time to cash in on the controversy. Then, they claim they had no

Drake’s allegations that UMG engaged in artificial manipulation of streaming numbers to inflate the success of Not Like Us raise broader concerns about deceptive business practices within the music industry. Rather than refuting these allegations directly, UMG argues that they do

4) To defeat the claim of actual malice, UMG argues that it lacked knowledge of any falsity in Lamar’s lyrics. However, actual malice can be demonstrated not only through direct knowledge but also through reckless disregard for the truth (Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v.

3) UMG invokes the historical context of rap battles to argue that no reasonable person would interpret Not Like Us as anything other than entertainment. However, it simultaneously ignores the broader context of its own actions—namely, its role in financing, distributing, and

2) UMG argues that rap battles are protected rhetorical hyperbole, but that defense conveniently ignores a fundamental question: would a reasonable listener interpret the lyrics as factual? The First Amendment is not a catch-all shield for defamatory statements, and courts have

1) UMG would have the court believe it was merely an innocent bystander in the biggest rap feud of the decade, just a humble distributor, minding its business while raking in millions. In reality, it actively profited from and promoted diss tracks on both sides. The claim that it

UMG's motion to dismiss is RIDICULOUS on so many levels. Let me give you some context:👇🧵

This album is straight dumpster juice 😂😂

safe to say we'll be getting another 20v1 tonight smh.