Universal Music Group Calls Drake Hypocritical in Not Like Us Defamation Appeal

Universal Music Group has filed an 83-page appellate brief in the Second Circuit, labeling Drake’s attempt to revive his defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” as “astoundingly hypocritical.” The filing argues that lyrics deemed “nonactionable opinion” by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas cannot be retroactively classified as factual statements, protecting the creative integrity of hip-hop while shielding the label from liability.

The legal wrangling over the most significant rap battle of the decade has moved from the streets to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the stakes have never been higher for the architecture of intellectual property in music. Universal Music Group (UMG) isn’t just defending a song; they are defending the very mechanism of artistic exaggeration that drives the genre’s brand equity. In a scathing 83-page filing obtained by Rolling Stone, the label’s counsel dismantles Drake’s appeal, characterizing his legal strategy as an attempt to “turn the law upside down” by demanding that hyperbolic vituperations be treated as verifiable facts.

This isn’t merely a dispute over lyrics; it is a high-stakes test of First Amendment protections within the context of commercial music. When an artist of Drake’s magnitude sues his own label, alleging that a rival’s track caused “serious harm” through defamation, the ripple effects threaten to freeze creative output across the industry. The core of UMG’s defense rests on the doctrine of “nonactionable opinion.” Judge Vargas originally ruled that a reasonable listener would understand Lamar’s “certified pedophile” hook as part of a heated dialogue, not a factual accusation. UMG’s new brief doubles down, noting that Drake himself has previously argued against the literal interpretation of rap lyrics in criminal contexts.

The hypocrisy charge is the sharpest weapon in UMG’s arsenal. The filing highlights a November 2022 petition that Drake signed, which criticized prosecutors for treating artists’ creative expression as fact. That petition argued that using rap lyrics as confessions is “un-American and simply wrong.” Now, facing a PR nightmare of his own making, Drake is arguably seeking the exact opposite legal standard to serve his financial interests. This pivot exposes a vulnerability in how top-tier talent manages crisis communication. When a narrative shifts this drastically, standard press releases fail. The immediate necessity for any executive facing such a reputational pivot is to deploy elite crisis communication firms and reputation managers to align public messaging with legal strategy, ensuring that the court of public opinion doesn’t render a verdict before the gavel drops.

“The precedent set here doesn’t just protect Kendrick; it fortifies the entire genre against literalist interpretations of artistic hyperbole. If lyrics develop into actionable facts, the risk calculus for every showrunner and producer in the music space changes overnight.”

The financial backdrop of this legal war is as massive as the cultural one. “Not Like Us” didn’t just chart; it dominated the cultural zeitgeist, securing Record and Song of the Year at the 2025 Grammy Awards and anchoring Lamar’s historic Super Bowl halftime performance. The song’s viral sensation translated into hundreds of millions of streams, creating a revenue stream that UMG has no incentive to disrupt. Drake’s original lawsuit, filed in January 2025, claimed UMG “relentlessly” marketed the track to mislead consumers. But, UMG’s motion to dismiss previously noted that Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked.” The label’s stance suggests that accepting liability for a diss track would set a dangerous categorical rule, effectively allowing any artist to sue a label for the creative content of their competitors.

For the broader entertainment industry, this case underscores the critical need for specialized legal counsel who understand the nuance between copyright infringement and defamation in the digital age. General practice firms often miss the subtleties of music syndication and lyrical context. Navigating a dispute where the “product” is the insult itself requires entertainment litigation and IP law firms that can argue the difference between a statement of fact and a stylistic flourish. The cost of getting this wrong isn’t just a fine; it’s the potential chilling of an entire art form.

Drake’s team has until April 17 to file a reply brief, but the momentum currently favors the label. The court’s initial dismissal hinged on the “overall context” of the nine-track battle, where both participants exchanged “incendiary language.” UMG argues that stripping words from this context to deem them actionable is “nonsensical.” This legal maneuvering highlights a broader trend in 2026: the collision of SVOD metrics and viral social sentiment with traditional tort law. As streaming numbers become the primary metric of success, the pressure to generate controversy—and the subsequent legal fallout when that controversy turns personal—will only intensify.

this appeal is about more than two rappers; it is about the boundaries of intellectual property in an era where every lyric is dissected by algorithms and juries alike. If Drake succeeds in convincing the appellate court that Lamar’s lyrics are factual assertions, it opens the floodgates for litigation that could cripple the backend gross potential of future collaborations and battles. The industry is watching closely, knowing that the Second Circuit’s decision will likely become the standard for how brand impact is measured against artistic freedom.

As the summer festival circuit approaches, the resolution of this case will dictate how labels manage their rosters during high-profile beefs. The smart money is on settlement or a reaffirmation of the lower court’s ruling, but until then, the legal bills will mount. For artists and executives navigating similar turbulent waters, the lesson is clear: before the first bar is dropped, ensure your talent agencies and management have fortified your legal perimeter. In the modern media landscape, the pen might be mightier than the sword, but the brief is mightier than both.

Disclaimer: The views and cultural analyses presented in this article are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Information regarding legal disputes or financial data is based on available public records.