Universal Music Group Shuts Down Drake’s Lawsuit, Says He’s Just Bitter After Losing to Kendrick Lamar

In a legal battle as intense as the lyrical clash that sparked it, Universal Music Group (UMG) has officially countered Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s incendiary diss track, Not Like Us.

According to court documents filed on Monday and obtained by TMZ, UMG claims Drake is trying to exploit the legal system out of sheer frustration following Lamar’s triumph in their highly publicized rap feud.

The message from UMG is clear and cutting. Drake willingly participated in the lyrical warfare, profited from it, fueled its flames, and now seeks legal remedy only after the public declared him defeated.

The Lawsuit That Shook the Industry: Drake’s Claims Against UMG

Drake initiated his lawsuit in January 2025, targeting both Kendrick Lamar and their shared label, Universal Music Group. At the heart of the complaint lies a particularly incendiary lyric from Lamar’s chart-dominating track “Not Like Us,” which labels Drake a “certified pedophile.” Drake contends that this accusation is blatantly false, and malicious, and has caused irreparable harm to his personal and professional reputation.

According to Drake’s legal filing, UMG played an active role in distributing and promoting Lamar’s track, amplifying its reach across global streaming platforms. Drake’s team argues that the label’s actions facilitated the spread of defamatory material. In a bold accusation, Drake also alleges that UMG incentivized platforms like Spotify and Apple Music to elevate “Not Like Us” to viral prominence, although concrete evidence of such activity has not been publicly disclosed.

According to sources such as Business Insider, Drake’s lawsuit highlights broader grievances, not just over Lamar’s lyrical assault but also with the structures of the music industry that he feels facilitated it.

UMG’s Response: Diss Tracks Are the Price of Admission

UMG wasted no time dismantling Drake’s lawsuit in its detailed legal response. The label contends that Drake’s claim ignores the well-established conventions of the diss track genre.

According to UMG, diss tracks are inherently provocative, theatrical, and designed to push boundaries. Such lyrical sparring has been a defining feature of hip-hop culture for decades, and audiences understand these insults as part of the performance rather than literal accusations.

UMG’s legal team further highlights Drake’s active participation in the feud. Far from being an unwitting victim, Drake contributed to the escalation by releasing his own barrage of diss tracks aimed at Lamar.

One notable example is Drake’s track “Family Matters,” where he accused Lamar of domestic abuse and questioned the paternity of Lamar’s child. UMG points out that Drake used the label’s platform to promote these tracks, benefiting from the controversy.

In no uncertain terms, UMG’s filing asserts that Drake’s lawsuit is a calculated move after public sentiment turned against him. As stated in the documents obtained by TMZ, “Drake wanted smoke until it blew up in his face.”

Artistic Expression Versus Legal Liability: Where Is the Line?

UMG’s argument rests on the broader cultural significance of diss tracks and artistic freedom. The label emphasizes that diss tracks, by nature, are aggressive and exaggerated, and should not be dissected as literal statements of fact. UMG contends that siding with Drake’s defamation claim would set a dangerous precedent that threatens the creative latitude of all artists, particularly within the realm of hip-hop.

Furthermore, UMG argues that both Drake and Lamar are seasoned professionals who voluntarily engaged in the battle and fully understood the unwritten rules of diss culture. By attempting to litigate the outcome, Drake seeks to rewrite those rules to his personal advantage, according to UMG.

UMG’s Legal Strategy: Motion to Dismiss

UMG has formally requested that the court dismiss Drake’s lawsuit in its entirety. The label’s legal team argues that the claims lack merit when viewed in the full context of the rap battle. They assert that the legal system should not be used as a tool to settle artistic disputes that were conducted willingly, publicly, and for commercial gain.

The label also scrutinizes the timing of Drake’s lawsuit. UMG suggests that Drake’s decision to file came only after the public and media largely declared Lamar the victor, rendering Drake’s legal maneuver an act of desperation.

UMG’s stance is unequivocal. As they see it, Drake’s lawsuit is not about justice but about salvaging his bruised image.

Industry Reactions: A Divided Response

The music industry has reacted swiftly to the unfolding legal drama. Some artists and insiders view Drake’s lawsuit as a potential threat to the long-standing tradition of diss tracks, fearing that legal fears could chill future battles. Others sympathize with Drake’s position, arguing that certain accusations cross ethical and legal boundaries, no matter the context.

A recent analysis by The Guardian posited that the lawsuit highlights deeper tensions within the music industry, where corporate interests, streaming algorithms, and public opinion converge in intricate and frequently volatile ways.

What Lies Ahead: The Stakes for Hip-Hop and the Music Industry

The court has yet to rule on UMG’s motion to dismiss. Should the court side with UMG, it would reaffirm the principle that diss tracks are protected forms of artistic expression, even when their content is harsh or provocative.

However, if the court allows Drake’s lawsuit to proceed, it could reshape the legal landscape of hip-hop, forcing artists and labels alike to reconsider the limits of lyrical combat.

One thing is certain: this case is about far more than two megastars trading verses. It is about the future of artistic freedom, the evolving power dynamics between artists and labels, and the fragile balance between expression and defamation in the digital age.