Universal Music Group (UMG) has responded forcefully to Drake’s lawsuit, in which the rapper accused his own record label of defamation.
The Canadian artist, whose real name is Aubrey Graham, filed a suit against UMG for allegedly endorsing and promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us. However, in a motion filed on Monday, March 17, UMG is seeking to dismiss the case, arguing that Drake initiated the feud and is now attempting to shift blame after losing the highly publicized rap battle.
The label’s response frames Drake’s lawsuit as an effort to salvage his pride rather than a legitimate legal complaint.
According to UMG’s filing, Drake, 38, willingly engaged in the back-and-forth with Lamar, 37, and only took legal action after the public overwhelmingly favored Lamar’s diss track. The label asserts, “Drake lost a rap battle that he provoked” and is now suing “in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”
UMG further points out that while Not Like Us contains inflammatory insults, Drake himself has used the label’s platform to release tracks filled with similar attacks against Lamar. This, they argue, undermines his defamation claims.
The controversy surrounding Not Like Us intensified due to its explicit allegations against Drake. In the song, Lamar refers to Drake and his associates as “certified pedophiles” and suggests they should be placed on neighborhood watch lists.
While Drake has denounced these lyrics as defamatory, UMG argues that he played an active role in escalating the feud. The label’s legal team highlights that Drake released multiple tracks baiting Lamar into responding and celebrated UMG’s promotion of his own accusations against the Compton rapper.
According to the motion, Drake was satisfied when the label promoted his lyrics suggesting that Lamar was guilty of domestic abuse and that one of Lamar’s associates was the real father of his child.
UMG’s filing claims that Drake was an enthusiastic participant in the rap battle until the tables turned. “Drake encouraged the feud,” the motion states.
“For example, when he felt that Lamar was taking too long to respond, Drake released a second recording in which he goaded Lamar to continue the public rap battle. Lamar did just that, and collectively, Drake and Lamar released a total of nine tracks taking aim at each other.”
The label asserts that since Drake actively engaged in the lyrical exchange and benefited from it, his sudden attempt to claim defamation is disingenuous.
Furthermore, UMG disputes Drake’s assertion that the promotion of Not Like Us constitutes “second-degree harassment” or violates New York’s general business law. The label reminds the court that Drake has previously defended rap lyrics as artistic expression. “Less than three years ago, Drake himself signed a public petition criticizing ‘the trend of prosecutors using artists’ creative expression against them’ by treating rap lyrics as literal fact,” the filing states.
It goes on to quote Drake’s past stance, in which he emphasized that rap music is “a product of the artist’s vision and imagination,” suggesting that he is contradicting his own beliefs by now taking Lamar’s lyrics as factual accusations.
UMG insists that Drake’s lawsuit is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rewrite the narrative of his rap battle loss. “Drake was right then and is wrong now,” the motion states.
“The complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar. The court should grant UMG’s motion and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.” If successful, this dismissal would prevent Drake from refiling the lawsuit, bringing an abrupt end to his legal fight against the label.
However, Drake’s legal team is standing firm, rejecting UMG’s attempt to frame the case as a mere rap feud. In a statement to PEOPLE, Drake’s attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb, dismissed the motion as an attempt to dodge accountability.
“UMG wants to pretend that this is about a rap battle in order to distract its shareholders, artists, and the public from a simple truth: a greedy company is finally being held responsible for profiting from dangerous misinformation that has already resulted in multiple acts of violence,” Gottlieb said.
“This 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.”
With both sides digging in, the lawsuit is poised to be a landmark case in the intersection of music, business, and defamation law.
Drake’s lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) alleges that Not Like Us conceals “cleverly dangerous lyrics” within an infectious beat and inviting hook, making the song’s message even more damaging.
According to the God’s Plan rapper, the diss track not only features defamatory lyrics but also takes things a step further by visually targeting him.
His legal filing claims that the cover art and music video for Not Like Us displayed his Toronto home, marked with labels resembling those used by law enforcement to identify sex offenders. This, Drake argues, was a deliberate and malicious attempt to tarnish his reputation on a global scale.
UMG was quick to reject Drake’s claims, dismissing them as baseless and illogical. In response to the lawsuit, the label released a statement categorically denying any intent to harm Drake’s reputation. “The notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist—let alone Drake—is illogical,”
The statement emphasized that UMG has made significant financial investments in Drake’s career and that its employees worldwide have worked tirelessly to help him reach historic levels of commercial and personal success. The label framed Drake’s lawsuit as not only unfounded but also contradictory, given their long-standing partnership.
Beyond defending itself, UMG also took aim at Drake’s motives for the lawsuit, accusing him of attempting to manipulate the legal system to silence artistic expression. The label pointed out that throughout his career, Drake has willingly used UMG’s platform to release music that engages in the very same “conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’” that he is now trying to condemn.
“He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music,” the statement continued. From UMG’s perspective, Drake’s lawsuit represents a double standard, as he has built his career on similar lyrical battles.
The label also made it clear that it does not engage in defamation—against Drake or anyone else. UMG stressed that its role has always been to distribute music, not to engage in personal attacks. “We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual,” the spokesperson stated.
The label’s message reinforced that its primary focus remains on supporting artists and maintaining its reputation as a leading music distributor. While acknowledging the contentious nature of rap feuds, UMG insisted that it had done nothing wrong in promoting Not Like Us as part of that artistic tradition.
Despite Drake’s legal maneuvering, UMG vowed to fight the lawsuit aggressively. The statement concluded with a firm stance on protecting not only the label itself but also the broader artistic community. “We will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song,” the spokesperson said.
With both sides unwilling to back down, the legal battle between Drake and UMG is shaping up to be a high-stakes showdown that could have lasting implications for the music industry.
