Drake Challenges Dismissal of UMG Defamation Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’

Legal Battle Continues: Drake Seeks to Revive Defamation Case Against Universal Music Group

In the latest development stemming from the most explosive rap feud of the decade, superstar Drake has formally filed an appeal seeking to overturn a lower court’s ruling that dismissed his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). The legal action centers on the highly controversial and commercially successful diss track by Kendrick Lamar, “Not Like Us.”

The appeal, filed in the appropriate appellate court in 2025, signals Drake’s determination to pursue legal recourse against the label responsible for distributing Lamar’s track, which became an instant cultural phenomenon but also contained allegations that Drake claims were defamatory. This move ensures that the legal fallout from the rivalry between the two hip-hop titans will continue to unfold in the courts, long after the initial musical volleys have ceased.

For readers seeking clarity on this complex legal maneuver, the immediate takeaway is that Drake is challenging the fundamental decision that ended his case prematurely. He argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law or the facts when it granted UMG’s motion to dismiss, thereby preventing the case from proceeding to discovery or trial.

Understanding the Core Conflict: Defamation and Distribution

To grasp the significance of this appeal, it is essential to understand the underlying legal claim and the specific target of the lawsuit. Drake did not sue Kendrick Lamar directly for defamation in this instance; instead, he targeted Universal Music Group, which serves as the distributor and parent company for Lamar’s music.

The Nature of the Defamation Claim

Defamation, in legal terms, requires proving that a false statement of fact was made to a third party, causing harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. In the context of artistic works, especially rap music, these claims are notoriously difficult to prove due to strong First Amendment protections for artistic expression, satire, and hyperbole.

“Not Like Us” was a pivotal track in the 2024 feud, characterized by pointed and highly damaging accusations against Drake. While the specific details of Drake’s original complaint remain under seal or heavily redacted, the core argument likely hinged on the assertion that the track contained statements that crossed the line from protected artistic commentary into actionable, verifiable falsehoods that severely damaged his professional standing and public image.

Why Target UMG?

Suing the distributor, UMG, rather than the artist, Kendrick Lamar, is a strategic legal decision. Major record labels and distributors often possess deeper pockets and greater liability exposure than individual artists. Drake’s legal team likely argued that UMG, by distributing the track without proper vetting or adherence to internal content standards, facilitated the dissemination of defamatory material, making them complicit in the resulting harm.

This approach raises critical questions about the responsibility of major music corporations in the era of rapid digital distribution and high-stakes artistic feuds:

• Content Vetting: What level of scrutiny must a distributor apply to content that contains potentially defamatory claims?
• Liability Shield: Does the label’s role as a distributor grant them the same First Amendment protections as the artist?
• Industry Precedent: A successful ruling for Drake could significantly alter how labels handle controversial content, potentially slowing down the release of future diss tracks or requiring extensive legal review before publication.

The Lower Court’s Dismissal: Grounds for Appeal

The original lawsuit was dismissed at an early stage, typically through a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6) in federal court) or a similar procedural mechanism. This means the judge determined that, even accepting all of Drake’s factual allegations as true, the complaint did not present a legally sufficient basis for a defamation case.

Common Grounds for Dismissal in Defamation Cases:

1. Opinion vs. Fact: The court may have ruled that the statements in “Not Like Us” were clearly hyperbolic opinions or artistic commentary, not verifiable statements of fact required for defamation.
2. Public Figure Standard: As a public figure, Drake must meet the high standard of proving actual malice—that UMG or Lamar knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This is a notoriously difficult burden to meet.
3. Lack of Proximate Cause: The court might have found that UMG’s role as a distributor was too far removed from the creation of the alleged defamatory content to hold them directly liable for the harm.

Drake’s appeal is a direct challenge to the trial judge’s interpretation of these legal standards. The appellate court will not retry the facts of the case; rather, it will review the record to determine if the lower court made a reversible error in applying the law to the complaint.

“An appeal of a dismissal is fundamentally a challenge to the legal reasoning applied by the lower court. Drake’s team must convince the appellate panel that the statements in ‘Not Like Us’ meet the stringent criteria for defamation, even within the highly protected realm of musical expression.”

The Broader Context: Artistic Freedom vs. Corporate Responsibility

The legal drama surrounding “Not Like Us” is inextricably linked to the broader cultural moment of the 2024 feud, which also involved controversial uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in music production.

While the specific defamation suit over “Not Like Us” focuses on the lyrics and content, the overall legal climate in the music industry is shifting rapidly. The use of AI to mimic voices (as seen in the earlier, non-defamation-related track “Taylor Made Freestyle”) and the rapid, unfiltered release of highly aggressive content are forcing labels to reassess their legal exposure.

Implications for Diss Tracks

Diss tracks have been a staple of hip-hop for decades, often relying on aggressive, sometimes factually questionable, rhetoric. Historically, courts have given wide latitude to these expressions. However, the scale and intensity of the Drake-Lamar feud, coupled with the immense commercial success of the tracks—“Not Like Us” topped charts globally—elevates the stakes considerably.

If Drake were successful in reviving the case, it could set a powerful precedent, potentially chilling the future release of highly personal and aggressive diss tracks by forcing artists and labels to operate with extreme caution regarding factual claims. This is why UMG, as the appellee, will vigorously defend the dismissal, aiming to maintain the status quo of broad protection for artistic expression.

The Appellate Process Timeline

The appellate process is often lengthy and methodical. The timeline typically involves several key stages:

1. Filing of Briefs: Drake (the Appellant) will file his opening brief, detailing the legal errors he alleges the trial court made. UMG (the Appellee) will then file a response brief, defending the dismissal.
2. Oral Arguments: Both sides may present their case before a panel of appellate judges.
3. Decision: The court will issue a written opinion, which could take several months, or even over a year, from the initial filing date. The court can either affirm the dismissal (upholding the lower court’s decision) or reverse the dismissal (sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings).

As of 2025, the case is now officially in the hands of the appellate judges, marking a new, critical phase in this high-profile legal saga.

Key Takeaways

This ongoing legal action is more than just a footnote to a rap battle; it is a significant test of defamation law in the digital music era. Here are the essential points readers need to know:

• The Action: Drake has appealed the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG).
• The Subject: The case concerns allegations of defamation contained within Kendrick Lamar’s hit diss track, “Not Like Us.”
• The Goal: Drake seeks to reverse the dismissal and allow the case to proceed to the discovery phase, potentially leading to a trial.
• The Legal Hurdle: The appeal must successfully argue that the trial court incorrectly applied the legal standards for defamation, particularly the high bar of actual malice required for public figures.
• Industry Impact: The outcome will influence the legal liability of major record labels regarding the distribution of controversial and potentially defamatory artistic content.

Conclusion: The Stakes of the Appeal

Drake’s decision to appeal demonstrates a commitment to pursuing the matter beyond the initial setback. For the music industry, the appellate court’s ruling will be closely watched. If the dismissal is affirmed, it reinforces the strong protection afforded to artistic expression, even in the context of highly personal attacks. If the dismissal is reversed, UMG could face a costly and reputationally damaging discovery process, forcing a reckoning with how major labels manage content risk in an increasingly aggressive and fast-paced digital landscape. The legal fight over the words contained in “Not Like Us” is far from over, and its resolution will have lasting consequences for both artists and their corporate partners.