As reported earlier today (March 17), Universal Music Group (UMG) has filed a motion to dismiss Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s hit track Not Like Us, arguing the case is “utterly without merit” and should be dismissed with prejudice.
The 32-page legal document, obtained by MBW, was filed today (March 17) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
UMG’s legal team doesn’t mince words in addressing Drake’s lawsuit: “Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated. 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.”
The motion to dismiss adds: “The Complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar.”
Here are five key arguments from UMG’s motion to dismiss Drake’s lawsuit:
1. UMG argues rap diss tracks are protected opinion, not statements of fact
The heart of UMG’s defense is that the content of Not Like Us cannot be legally treated as defamatory statements of fact.
“‘Not Like Us’ clearly conveys nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole — diss tracks are a popular and celebrated artform centered around outrageous insults, and they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed,” the document states.
“Diss tracks are a popular and celebrated artform centered around outrageous insults, and they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed.”
UMG’s attorneys argue that when evaluated in context—particularly the prior rap diss tracks exchanged between Drake and Lamar — no reasonable listener would interpret the lyrics as factual statements rather than hyperbolic insults.
“Looking first to its tone, the four and one-half minute rap diss track consists of a series of ‘epithets, fiery rhetoric [and] hyperbole,’ endemic to the rap genre,” UMG’s filing states.
2. UMG points out Drake himself asked Lamar to “talk about [Drake] likin’ young girls”
In a particularly notable argument, UMG’s lawyers highlight that Drake himself seemed to invite the very content he’s now suing over.
The filing points out that in Drake’s Taylor Made Freestyle track (released before Not Like Us), Drake used AI-generated vocals made to sound like Tupac Shakur to rap: “Talk about [Drake] likin’ young girls, that’s a gift from me / Heard it on the Budden Podcast, it’s gotta be true.”
UMG argues that Drake essentially invited the very lines he now claims are defamatory.
3. UMG highlights that Drake himself previously opposed treating rap lyrics as literal statements
In perhaps one of its most interesting arguments, UMG’s motion points out that 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 motion directly quotes words from that petition: “[T]he final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination.”
UMG adds: “Drake was right then and is wrong now.”
“Drake was right then and is wrong now.”
The petition in question was a ‘Protect Black Art —Rap Music On Trial’ campaign launched as concerns grew that prosecutors were citing rap lyrics in court against artists, most famously in Young Thug’s RICO charges case.
UMG’s motion to dismiss concludes by repeating that Drake’s lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice. UMG is represented by Sidley Austin LLP in this matter.
4. UMG argues Drake cannot establish “actual malice” as required for a defamation claim
As a public figure, Drake must prove that UMG published the allegedly defamatory statements with “actual malice” — meaning with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
UMG argues this standard cannot be met because the rap diss track was clearly understood to be artistic expression rather than factual statements: “UMG released a rap diss track, conveying fiery rhetoric and insults—not factual assessments, much less false ones.”
The motion notes UMG engaged in the same conduct when distributing Drake’s own diss tracks against Lamar, which contained their own hyperbolic claims.
5. UMG turns to the statute books
Drake’s lawsuit includes a claim for “harassment in the second degree” under New York Penal Law § 240.26, but UMG argues this criminal statute does not provide a private right of action allowing individuals to sue.
“Rarely is there a private right of action under a criminal statute: as a general rule, when a statute is contained solely within the Penal Law Section, the New York legislature intended it as a police regulation to be enforced only by a court of criminal jurisdiction,” UMG’s lawyers argue.
UMG’s motion also seeks dismissal of Drake’s claim under New York General Business Law § 349, which prevents deceptive business practices directed at consumers.
UMG argues Drake’s claim fails because:
- The alleged conduct was not “consumer-oriented” as required by the statute
- Drake does not allege the statements were “deceptive or misleading in a material way”
- Drake’s alleged injuries are speculative and not causally linked to the deception
Universal’s motion to dismiss filing can be read in full here.
As MBW previously reported, Drake filed his defamation lawsuit against UMG in January 2025, shortly after withdrawing an earlier legal petition that had accused UMG and Spotify of artificially inflating streaming numbers for Not Like Us.
That original petition claimed UMG had offered Spotify licensing rates 30% lower than usual for Not Like Us in exchange for promoting the track. Both UMG and Spotify denied these allegations at the time.
Drake’s current lawsuit doesn’t name Lamar as a defendant and focuses solely on UMG’s role in distributing and promoting Not Like Us.
UMG previously told MBW in January: “Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist — let alone Drake — is illogical. We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”
Music Business Worldwide