Universal Music Group fires back at Drake’s lawsuit, calls it a desperate attempt to “save face”

Drake’s legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s scathing diss track “Not Like Us” took a sharp turn. In a motion filed Monday (March 17), the company dismissed the artist's defamation lawsuit as nothing more than an attempt to “save face” after a high-profile rap battle loss, arguing that his claims are “meritless” and legally indefensible.

“Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,” UMG’s lawyers wrote, per 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.”

Why is Drake suing Universal Music Group?

At the core of Drake’s lawsuit is the claim that UMG actively pushed “Not Like Us” to spread a “malicious narrative” about him – most notably Lamar’s explosive accusation that he was a “certified pedophile.” UMG made it clear that they see this case as weak retaliation. They pointed out that Drake himself took no issue with using equally inflammatory language during the feud, accusing Lamar of domestic abuse and questioning whether he actually fathered his son.

“Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar,” UMG’s attorneys claimed. “But now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims that ‘Not Like Us’ is defamatory. It is not.”

Diss tracks are protected speech, says UMG

UMG framed Drake’s lawsuit as an attack on the very essence of Hip Hop’s competitive spirit. “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 read. “Hyperbolic and metaphorical language is par for the course in diss tracks. Indeed, Drake’s own diss tracks employed imagery at least as violent.”

From a legal standpoint, UMG argued that Lamar’s lyrics are either “rhetorical hyperbole” or opinion -- statements that may be harsh but are not provably false. Since defamation law only applies to false assertions of fact, this distinction could be crucial to the case.

What happens next?

In an ironic twist, UMG also called out Drake for contradicting his own past stance on artistic expression. The company referenced a 2022 petition that Drake co-signed alongside Megan Thee Stallion, 21 Savage and others, which opposed prosecutors using rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. The argument, brought forth mainly in support of a then-incarcerated Young Thug and his YSL collective, was that lyrics should be seen as creative expression, not literal confessions.

“As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, ‘The final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination,’” UMG’s filing reminded the court. “Drake was right then and is wrong now.”

While UMG is pushing for an immediate dismissal, Drake’s legal team is ready to handle the matter in court. “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,” wrote Mike Gottlieb, the OVO frontman’s lead attorney, in a statement shared to REVOLT. “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 and abusing its artists.”