Kid Cudi Says First Amendment Protected Firing M.I.A. From Tour, Wants $2.8 Million Lawsuit Tossed
Kid Cudi says the First Amendment gave him the right to remove M.I.A. from his Rebel Ragers Tour and is asking a federal judge to throw out her lawsuit seeking more than $2.8 million over the firing.
M.I.A. says her contract allowed her to say what she wanted onstage. Cudi is now making the opposite argument: that his own free speech rights protected his decision over who appeared on the tour and what his concerts represented.
The rapper, whose legal name is Scott Mescudi, filed a motion Tuesday seeking dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which allows defendants to challenge lawsuits arising from activity protected by free speech rights.
His attorney, Mathew Rosengart, argues M.I.A. is attempting to hold Mescudi liable for exercising artistic and editorial control over his own concert production.
“Plaintiffs impermissibly seek to hold a musical artist liable for exercising his First Amendment free-speech rights concerning artistic expression,” Rosengart wrote, pointing specifically to the “artistic and political content” of the tour.
M.I.A., whose legal name is Mathangi Arulpragasam, and her touring company sued Mescudi in federal court in Los Angeles on May 29 after she was removed from the tour earlier that month.
Her lawsuit claims Mescudi caused Live Nation to breach an agreement guaranteeing her $2.805 million for the tour. She also alleges the contract gave her control over the content of her performances and is seeking additional damages tied to lost merchandise, VIP revenue and other business opportunities.
The case now turns on two competing claims of artistic freedom.
M.I.A. argues she had contractual protection to speak freely during her performances. Mescudi says his own constitutional rights allowed him to decide which artists appeared alongside him and what kind of material would be presented as part of his tour.
His attorneys are asking the court to resolve that dispute at an early stage under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Mescudi must first show that M.I.A.’s claims arise from conduct protected by the law. If he clears that threshold, M.I.A. would then have to show that her claims have enough legal and factual support to continue.
A defendant who successfully defeats a lawsuit through an anti-SLAPP motion is generally entitled to recover attorney’s fees, adding another potential financial consequence to the case.
M.I.A.’s removal followed a May 2 performance in Dallas where several of her comments drew boos from the crowd. She said during the set that she had been “canceled for being a brown Republican voter” and also addressed immigration, ICE, and Palestine.
Mescudi announced days later that she was no longer part of the tour. He said her team had been warned that he did not want offensive material presented during his shows and that he had received complaints from fans.
“I won’t have someone on my tour making offensive remarks that upsets my fanbase,” he said at the time.
M.I.A. disputes that justification.
Her complaint alleges Mescudi knew she was an outspoken artist before she joined the tour and claims her agreement with Live Nation expressly gave her creative control over her performances. She also alleges her removal was used to generate publicity for a tour that had struggled with ticket sales.
Her attorney, Howard King, accused Mescudi of acting in bad faith and interfering with her contractual rights, business opportunities and reputation.
Mescudi’s dismissal motion argues that the reason for removing M.I.A. does not change the protected nature of the decision. His attorneys describe choosing who appears on a concert tour as a form of artistic casting and editorial control.
Their argument relies in part on a 2019 California appellate ruling involving late rocker Eddie Money.
Money was sued by longtime drummer Glenn Symmonds after removing him from his touring band. He invoked the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that choosing the musicians who performed with him was part of his constitutionally protected artistic expression.
A California appeals court agreed that the decision qualified as protected activity under the first stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The court did not dismiss Symmonds’ discrimination claim outright and instead sent the case back for a determination of whether he could show a probability of prevailing.
Mescudi’s lawyers argue the same reasoning should apply to his decision to remove M.I.A.
“The challenged conduct of supposedly having M.I.A. removed from performing on the tour also directly concerns the casting, content, and character of a live musical performance,” Rosengart wrote.
Whether the First Amendment argument ends the case will depend not only on whether the court views Mescudi’s decision as protected activity, but also on whether M.I.A. can show her contractual interference claims are strong enough to survive the second stage of the anti-SLAPP test.
The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett in the Central District of California. M.I.A.’s attorney had not publicly responded to the dismissal motion as of Wednesday.
