Drake’s Team Blasts Universal Music Group in Bombshell Court Statement Over “Certified Pedophiles” Lyrics

Drake’s legal team clashed with Universal Music Group in federal court this afternoon and left no doubt that they’re coming for blood.

Fresh off a court appearance in Manhattan, Drake’s camp dropped a scathing post-hearing statement accusing UMG, the world’s most powerful record label, of operating in shadows and silencing artists behind closed doors.

“UMG is desperate to see this case not move forward,” a spokesperson for Drake said. “Because the company can’t hide its misconduct in a courtroom the way it does in the boardroom. Soon, in addition to facing concerned regulators and investors, the leadership of music’s most powerful label will have to answer for the damage it has caused to every artist that has been silenced, exploited, endangered or discarded.”

UMG has yet to respond to Drake’s latest remarks. But the courtroom drama today proved this is no longer just a diss war between rap titans. It’s an all-out legal and reputational war.

THE CORE OF THE CASE: “CERTIFIED PEDOPHILES” LYRIC AND SUPER BOWL DRAMA

The legal beef centers on the now-infamous “Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles” line from Kendrick Lamar’s nuclear diss track “Not Like Us.” Drake’s amended defamation suit, filed in April, claims Universal Music Group defamed him by platforming and promoting Lamar’s lyrics which he says were built on dangerous and false insinuations.

And though the lyric was edited out of Lamar’s Super Bowl LIX halftime show performance, Drake’s team argued in court that the implication still lingers both in public perception and legal responsibility.

INSIDE THE COURTROOM: JUDGE QUESTIONS FAN INTERPRETATION

According to Inner City Press, the lyric became a flashpoint in today’s proceedings. Drake’s lawyers explained the line was a “play on words” referencing his 2021 album Certified Lover Boy, but the judge wasn’t entirely convinced.

“Would an ordinary fan reasonably know that?” the judge asked skeptically.

Drake’s lawyers pushed back, insisting the lyric rides on a wave of damaging rumors already in circulation about Drake’s relationships with younger women. Rumors they say UMG helped amplify.

UMG CLAPS BACK: “DRAKE STARTED IT”

Universal is aggressively seeking to get Drake’s amended lawsuit dismissed. They’re painting his legal strategy as a bitter reaction to getting outperformed lyrically and commercially by Kendrick Lamar.

In their motion to dismiss, obtained by Variety, UMG emphasized that Lamar did not perform the controversial lyric during the Super Bowl and therefore Drake’s complaint falls apart.

“As Drake concedes, Lamar’s Super Bowl performance did not include the lyric that Drake or his associates are ‘certified pedophiles’… The focus of Drake’s new claims that ‘the largest audience for a Super Bowl halftime show ever’ did not hear Lamar call Drake or his crew pedophiles betrays this case for what it is. Drake’s attack on the commercial and creative success of the rap artist who defeated him rather than the content of Lamar’s lyrics.”

UMG’s legal team also mocked Drake’s double standard, saying his lawyers conveniently forgot the many times Drake has used equally provocative taunts in his own music.

“Apparently, Drake’s lawyers believe that when Drake willingly participates in a performative rap-battle of music and poetry, he can be ‘defamed’ even though he engages in the exact same form of creative expression.”

THIS IS ABOUT MORE THAN RAP

Drake’s team is clearly trying to shift the narrative from lyrical rivalry to corporate exploitation and industry accountability. The statement’s references to “regulators” and “investors” suggest that Drake is teeing up a broader campaign possibly to rattle UMG’s financial and legal foundation.

And while UMG frames this case as petty posturing from a bruised ego, the court will now need to decide where the line between diss track and defamation truly lies.

The stakes are enormous. This isn’t just about Drake’s reputation. It’s about whether rap lyrics, when promoted by corporate giants, can be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. If the case moves forward, it could set a precedent that echoes across music, free speech, and entertainment law.

Stay tuned.