Drake’s legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s scathing diss track “Not Like Us” took a sharp turn. On March 17, 2025, UMG filed a motion dismissing the artist's defamation lawsuit as nothing more than an attempt to “save face” after suffering loss in a high-profile rap battle. The company argued, through their legal attorneys, the claim is “meritless” and legally indefensible.
“Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle he provoked and willingly participated in,” remarked UMG’s lawyers, as reported by Billboard. “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.” This exchange showcases the heightened drama often associated with disputes among top artists.
So, what exactly led Drake to sue UMG? At the heart of Drake’s lawsuit lies the claim asserting UMG actively pushed “Not Like Us” to circulate what he describes as a “malicious narrative” about him—most noteworthily Lamar’s explosive accusation labeling him as a “certified pedophile.”
UMG rebuffed these claims, asserting their perspective portrays this case as simply weak retaliation from Drake. They pointed out the paradox of his position, highlighting how he had used incendiary language himself during the feud. For example, during the back-and-forth, Drake accused Lamar of domestic abuse and even questioned the legitimacy of whether Lamar is the father of his own son.
“Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar,” UMG’s legal team stated. “Now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims ‘Not Like Us’ is defamatory. It is not.” The underlying issue reveals another layer of complexity, illustrating how artists engage with each other creatively and combatively within the Hip Hop scene.
UMG framed Drake’s lawsuit as allegedly threatening the essence of the competitive spirit inherent within Hip Hop culture: “Diss tracks are a popular and celebrated art form centered around outrageous insults, and they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed,” the filing noted. This statement explains the risk posed to artistic expression when legal repercussions arise from what is typically hyperbolic and metaphorical language.
The lawyers for UMG contended Lamar’s lyrics may be categorized as either “rhetorical hyperbole” or opinion—types of statements often considered protected speech under defamation law. They argued this is of premier importance since defamation claims hinge on the basis of false assertions of fact, which may be difficult to prove within the framework of rap lyrics.
Adding to the irony, UMG also pointed out Drake’s inconsistency, referencing his 2022 petition which he co-signed alongside prominent artists like Megan Thee Stallion and 21 Savage. The petition took a stand against the use of rap lyrics as evidence pulled from criminal trials, articulately advocating for artists’ rights to creative expression.
“The final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination,” UMG reiterated, quoting Drake from the past. “Drake was right then and is wrong now.” This duality underlines the blurred lines between artistic freedom and the vulnerability artists face when their work becomes contested on legal grounds.
While UMG is pushing for the immediate dismissal of the case, Drake's legal team maintains their determination to proceed through court. “UMG wants to pretend this is about a rap battle to distract its shareholders, artists, and the public from the simple truth: A greedy company is finally being held responsible for profiting from dangerous misinformation,” said Mike Gottlieb, the OVO frontman’s lead attorney, sharing his thoughts with REVOLT. “This motion is simply desperate ploy by UMG to avoid accountability, but we are confident this case will proceed and continue to expose UMG’s long history of endangering and abusing its artists.”
This legal spat exemplifies the collision of artistry and industry within the music business. It emphasizes the power struggle between individual expression and corporate interests. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects not only on the involved parties but also on how future disputes among hip-hop artists are navigated within legal contexts.
