Drake vs. UMG: Rap Battles, Defamation, and the Legal Limits of Artistic Expression

Credit: Sanfer Chaney III

In one of the most high-profile legal disputes in recent music history, Drake has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging the label knowingly promoted content that defamed him, specifically Kendrick Lamar’s viral diss track, Not Like Us. This case raises urgent questions about how far freedom of expression extends in the music industry—and whether the hyperbole often used in rap lyrics should be protected when they cross into potentially damaging accusations.

The Spark: "Not Like Us"

Released during the height of a lyrical feud between Kendrick Lamar and Drake, Not Like Us quickly shot to the top of charts. The song contains lines that many listeners interpreted as allusions to Drake being inappropriate with underage girls—a claim he has forcefully denied. According to Drake’s legal filing, these lyrics were more than just artistic jabs. He argues they constitute defamation, and that UMG, his own label, intentionally promoted the song for profit, knowing the damage it would cause (Sisario, 2025).

Defamation or Art?

UMG responded by filing a motion to dismiss, stating the lyrics fall under protected speech and that rap battles are a longstanding cultural norm in hip-hop. The label also emphasized that the lawsuit could set a dangerous precedent by asking courts to treat metaphorical or exaggerated lyrics as literal statements (Ingham, 2025). Legal experts are divided. Some argue that Drake’s case challenges the boundaries of what constitutes protected speech in entertainment. Others warn that penalizing labels for promoting controversial music could lead to censorship or chilling effects on artist creativity.

Super Bowl and Virality

The lawsuit escalated after Kendrick Lamar performed Not Like Us during the 2025 Super Bowl halftime show. Drake amended his complaint to include the performance, stating it amplified the defamatory content to a global audience of millions. His legal team further claimed that this had real-world consequences, including heightened threats against his family and property (Guardian News, 2025).

Behind the Lawsuit

Drake's legal team requested access to internal UMG documents related to the promotion of Lamar’s song and performance. A judge allowed this discovery process to proceed, despite UMG's attempts to delay. Additionally, Drake resolved a side dispute with iHeartMedia after documents showed the company did not engage in pay-for-play promotion of Not Like Us (Pitchfork, 2025).

What’s at Stake?

If Drake wins, this case could redefine the responsibilities labels have when it comes to managing artist disputes and promotional strategies. If UMG prevails, the ruling may reinforce legal protections for artistic expression in hip-hop, even when lyrics veer into deeply personal or aggressive territory. Either outcome will have implications far beyond Drake and Kendrick. The verdict could influence how diss tracks, label loyalty, and artistic freedom coexist in the era of viral culture and legal accountability.

References

Ingham, T. (2025, March 27). UMG fires back at Drake’s lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar diss track. Music Business Worldwide. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/5-key-arguments-from-umgs-attempt-to-dismiss-drakes-defamation-lawsuit/

Sisario, B. (2025, January 15). Drake sues Universal over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, claiming defamation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/arts/music/drake-kendrick-lamar-lawsuit.html

Guardian News. (2025, April 18). Drake expands lawsuit against Universal Music Group, citing Super Bowl performance. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/apr/18/drake-umg-super-bowl-defamation-lawsuit

Pitchfork. (2025, March 9). Drake settles side suit with iHeartMedia over "Not Like Us" promotion. https://pitchfork.com/news/drake-settles-iheartmedia-lawsuit/