Universal Music Group (UMG) has officially filed a motion asking the court to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by superstar rapper Drake.
Drake sued UMG for defamation in January, accusing UMG of promoting a “false and malicious narrative” about him via the content of the lyrics, single artwork and music video for Kendrick Lamar’s hit single, and Drake diss track, Not Like Us.
The music company argues in its motion, filed on Monday (March 17) that Drake’s “complaint is utterly without merit and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
UMG writes in its court filing, obtained by MBW, and which you can read in full here, that Drake, “one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated”.
The filing adds: “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.”
Both Drake and Lamar release their records via UMG and its Republic Records and Interscope, respectively.
Not Like Us (Interscope), recorded by Lamar, was released as part of a rap feud with Drake on May 4, as part of a series of three diss tracks, all released within a few days of each other (the other tracks are Euphoria and Meet The Grahams).
The track reached No.1 on the Hot 100, marking Lamar’s fourth-ever US No.1, and his second that year, following Like That by Future, Metro Boomin & Kendrick Lamar, which hit No.1 in April. The track also marked the first US No.1 for Not Like Us producer Mustard.
UMG notes in the legal document filed today that Not Like Us is “a massive commercial and artistic success. ” The company points out that the record was “the best-selling rap recording of 2024,” winning Grammy Awards for Record of the Year, Best Music Video, and Song of the Year.
The track “has become a ubiquitous cultural phenomenon” adds UMG in the filing. Lamar also performed the song at the 2025 Superbowl halftime show “to a record audience,” while Saturday Night Live parodied the track on its recent 50th anniversary special.
In the accompanying memorandum supporting UMG’s motion, the company notes that “multiple commentators declared Lamar to be the “winner” of the rap battle with Drake, which saw the two artists collectively release nine tracks “taking aim at each other. ”
UMG argues that Not Like Us, “like all of the recordings in the feud between Drake and Lamar, and like the many notorious diss tracks throughout rap’s history, consists of a series of hyperbolic insults”.
“Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar … But now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims that Not Like Us is defamatory. It is not.”
UMG
The motion adds: “Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar, including, most significantly, that Lamar engaged in domestic abuse and that one of Lamar’s business partners and managers is the true father of Lamar’s son.
“But now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims that Not Like Us is defamatory. It is not. While the Complaint focuses almost entirely on Not Like Us, it disregards the other Drake and Lamar diss tracks that surrounded Not Like Us as well as the conventions of the diss track genre, and, thus, critically ignores the context of the dispute”.
UMG argues further that “assessed in context, as it must be”, Lamar’s Not Like Us “clearly conveys nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole”.
UMG also explains to the court that “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”.
Elsewhere in the motion to dismiss, UMG notes that Drake also alleges that Not Like Us “constitutes ‘Second Degree Harassment,’ but sues under a criminal statute that does not proscribe speech and has no private right of action”.
The motion continues: “Finally, Drake claims that UMG’s promotion of Not Like Us violates New York General Business Law § 349, but fails to allege any of the elements for that claim.
“Notably, 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.
“See UMG’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. A. As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap,’“[t]he final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination.’
“Drake was right then and is wrong now. The Complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar.”
UMG calls on the court to grant its motion and dismiss the Complaint with “prejudice”.
“This motion is a desperate ploy by UMG to avoid accountability.”
Mike Gottlieb, legal team
In a statement issued to MBW today, Drake’s attorney Mike Gottlieb, who leads the rapper’s legal team, said: “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.
“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.”
Meanwhile, in a state court in Texas, Drake’s lawyers are pushing for discovery in a separate legal petition that claims UMG had paid radio stations and other music media to play Not Like Us, without informing listeners of the fact.
Drake’s lawyers allege that UMG “engaged in deliberate, irregular, and inappropriate business practices – including covert and illegal pay-to-play (“payola”) deals – to create a record-shattering spread of Not Like Us.”
The petition initially named UMG and radio giant iHeartMedia as respondents, but Drake and iHeart “reached an amicable resolution of the dispute” at the end of February leaving UMG as the sole respondent.
iHeart issued a statement saying that “in exchange for documents that showed iHeart did nothing wrong, Drake agreed to drop his petition. No payments were made – by either one of us.”
According to a report by the Associated Press, a representative for Drake disputed iHeart’s claim, saying the radio company “has not provided a single document as of yet to Drake, let alone any information that showed they did nothing wrong.”Music Business Worldwide