Drake Slams UMG’s Motion to Dismiss: ‘They Profited from Dangerous Misinformation’

The legal battle between Aubrey Drake Graham (Drake) and Universal Music Group (UMG) has escalated further, with Drake’s legal team issuing a firm rebuttal to UMG’s recent motion to dismiss his defamation lawsuit. The lawsuit centers on Kendrick Lamar’s track Not Like Us, which was released under UMG and allegedly contains false and defamatory implications that Drake engaged in criminal misconduct.

UMG has argued that the lawsuit is merely a retaliation for a rap battle defeat, but Drake’s attorneys contend that the case involves far more serious legal and ethical concerns, including the reckless dissemination of dangerous misinformation that has already led to real-world violence.

UMG’s Argument: A Rap Battle, Not Defamation

On March 17, 2025, Universal Music Group formally filed a motion to dismiss Drake’s lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In its legal filing, UMG’s attorneys framed the lawsuit as an attempt to litigate the results of a rap battle rather than a legitimate defamation claim.

UMG asserted that diss tracks are a longstanding tradition in hip-hop culture, where artists publicly challenge and insult each other in a form of musical competition. The label contends that the lyrics in Not Like Us should be interpreted within this historical and artistic context, rather than as factual statements.

In its motion, UMG’s legal team stated:

“Plaintiff [Drake], one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated.”

UMG further argued that defamation law does not extend to hyperbolic, rhetorical, or artistic speech, particularly in a genre that thrives on provocation and confrontation. The label claimed that allowing such lawsuits would set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining artistic freedom and limiting creative expression within the music industry.

Drake’s Legal Team Responds: UMG Profited from Dangerous Misinformation

In response to UMG’s motion, Michael J. Gottlieb, Drake’s lead attorney, issued a strong statement rejecting UMG’s characterization of the lawsuit.

Drake’s legal team emphasized that this case is not about a rap battle but rather about a major corporation profiting from defamatory content that has led to real-world consequences, including multiple acts of violence against Drake’s associates and fans.

Gottlieb stated:

“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.”

He further described UMG’s motion to dismiss as:

“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, abusing, and taking advantage of its artists.”

Background of the Legal Dispute

The lawsuit follows months of escalating tensions between Drake and Kendrick Lamar. Their public feud intensified in 2024, culminating in Lamar’s release of Not Like Us, which quickly became a viral sensation.

Drake’s legal complaint, filed in January 2025, does not name Lamar as a defendant. Instead, it directly targets Universal Music Group, alleging that the label knowingly distributed, promoted, and financially benefited from lyrics that falsely accuse him of serious criminal conduct.

Drake also alleges that UMG engaged in unethical promotional tactics to amplify the song’s reach. In November 2024, he filed an initial petition against UMG and Spotify, accusing them of artificially boosting the track’s streaming numbers through illicit methods. That complaint was later incorporated into the broader defamation lawsuit filed in early 2025.

Legal Implications and Industry Impact

This case presents critical legal questions regarding the boundaries of artistic expression, corporate responsibility, and the real-world consequences of defamatory content in music.

While freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right, defamation laws prohibit knowingly false statements that cause tangible harm. The court will need to decide whether the lyrics in Not Like Us constitute protected artistic speech or if they cross the line into defamatory falsehoods.

Additionally, the case raises concerns about the responsibility of record labels in distributing and profiting from potentially harmful content. If the lawsuit proceeds, it could set a new legal precedent for how defamation claims are handled within the music industry.

What Happens Next?

The case is currently pending in the Southern District of New York, where a judge will rule on UMG’s motion to dismiss in the coming months.

If the motion is denied, the lawsuit will move forward into the discovery phase, where both sides will be required to provide evidence supporting their claims. This could potentially lead to depositions, document disclosures, and further legal battles between Drake and one of the world’s largest music corporations.

If the motion is granted, Drake’s legal team may choose to appeal the decision or pursue alternative legal avenues to hold UMG accountable.