Drake v. UMG, defamation over 'Not Like Us'

Background

In January 2025, rapper Drake (Aubrey Graham) filed suit against his own label, Universal Music Group, in the Southern District of New York, alleging that UMG knowingly published and aggressively promoted Kendrick Lamar's diss track "Not Like Us" despite knowing its lyrics falsely accuse Drake of being a pedophile and sex offender. Drake alleged defamation, negligence, and related torts, targeting the label rather than Lamar directly.

In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the case, ruling that the challenged lyrics constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment rather than actionable statements of fact. Judge Torres declined to treat rap lyrics as a special category immune from defamation, but found Drake had not plausibly alleged the specific factual elements required.

Drake appealed. His opening brief, filed January 21, 2026, argued the district court "created a dangerous categorical rule that rap diss tracks can never be actionable." UMG filed its 83-page response on March 30, 2026, calling Drake's appeal "astoundingly hypocritical" given his own history with diss culture. Drake's reply brief was filed April 17, 2026. Yale Law School amicus scholars sided with UMG, arguing Drake effectively consented to the lyrical attack by engaging in the public rap beef. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

Why It Matters for Artists and Fans

If Drake wins, it could expose labels to defamation liability for content they distribute, potentially chilling aggressive A&R and marketing decisions. If UMG wins on appeal, it cements the precedent that rap diss-track lyrics, however specific, are nearly impossible to litigate as defamation, leaving artists without recourse through the courts for reputational attacks. The case also highlights a structural oddity: Drake sued his distributor rather than the artist, turning a label relationship into a litigation front.