UMG moves to dismiss Drake’s defamation lawsuit, calling it a ‘misguided attempt to salve his wounds’
Image credits: Norman Wong
Universal Music Group fires back at Drake’s lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”- arguing it lacks merit.
Universal Music Group (UMG) has finally responded to Drake’s defamation lawsuit, calling for its dismissal with prejudice. The motion, filed Monday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that Drake is attempting to use legal action as a way to “salve his wounds” after losing a rap battle to Kendrick Lamar.
UMG’s motion to dismiss
Drake’s initial claim
Many already know about the feud between the pair last summer, as well as the legal allegations that have rumbled on since November 2024– the most recent of which was settled between Drake and iHeartMedia.
Drake originally filed the lawsuit in January 2025 (which you can read here), claiming that UMG “approved, published, and launched a campaign to create a viral hit” out of Lamar’s diss track, “Not Like Us”. The lawsuit did not target Lamar despite his track labelling Drake a “certified pedophile”. Instead, it accuses UMG of monetizing a song containing defamatory lyrics, artwork, and a music video that the label knew to be false and dangerous.
This lawsuit followed a series of legal disputes surrounding the track, which became a cultural moment after winning Record and Song of the Year at the 2025 Grammys and was performed to a record audience at the Super Bowl halftime show.
UMG’s response
UMG’s response asserts that Drake’s claims do not meet the criteria for defamation. The label argues that diss tracks are an established convention within hip-hop, built around exaggerated insults, and that “Not Like Us” contains “nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, not fact”.
Sharing the views of many, UMG also highlights the hypocrisy of Drake’s claim who was willing “to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similar” attacks towards Lamar. In particular, Drake accused Lamar of domestic abuse and alleged that Lamar’s manager and business partner was the true father of his child during their rap feud.
Of particular interest, the motion notes that just three years ago Drake publicly supported a petition against prosecutors “treating rap lyrics as literal fact” – a stance that contradicts his defamation claim.
The full motion can be read here.
Drake’s attorney fires back
In a statement for Variety, Drake’s attorney responded to UMG’s motion, calling it a “desperate ploy…to avoid accountability”. He argued that UMG is pretending this is about a rap battle to “distract its shareholders, artists and the public from the simple truth: a greedy company profiting from dangerous misinformation that has already resulted in multiple acts of violence”.
“The motion is a desperate ploy by UMG to avoid accountability, but we have every confidence that this case will proceed and continue to uncover UMG’s long history of endangering, abusing and taking advantage of its artists.”
Michael J. Gottlieb, Drake’s attorney