Drake’s record label is seeking to have his lawsuit against it dismissed, arguing he “encouraged” his feud with Kendrick Lamar. This legal battle represents one of the most high-profile disputes in the music industry this year, with potential precedent-setting implications.
The Canadian rapper sued Universal Music Group (UMG) for releasing and promoting Kendrick’s diss track “Not Like Us’ but in its response to the defamation case, the label argued the 38-year-old star “lost a rap battle that he provoked” and “sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.” Industry experts note that this case could redefine the boundaries between artistic expression and defamation in the digital streaming era.
In documents obtained by People magazine, UMG claimed that although “Not Like Us” features hyperbolic insults, including referring to Drake and his friends as “certified paedophiles,” Drake had used its platform to “promote tracks levelling similarly incendiary attacks” on his rival. The track has become one of the most streamed songs in the ongoing feud between the two artists.
‘Drake encouraged the feud’
“Drake encouraged the feud,” the filing added. “For example, when he felt that Lamar was taking too long to respond, Drake released a second recording in which he goaded Lamar to continue the public rap battle. Lamar did just that, and collectively Drake and Lamar released a total of nine tracks taking aim at each other.” This exchange has been dubbed by music critics as one of the most intense rap battles in recent history.
The motion notes Drake was “pleased” to see UMG promote tracks that accused Kendrick of engaging in domestic abuse and “that one of Lamar’s business partners and managers is the true father of Lamar’s son.” Social media platforms have been flooded with content related to the highly publicized feud.
“But now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims that “Not Like Us” is defamatory. It is not,” the filing noted. Legal experts point out that the case touches on complex issues of artistic freedom, corporate responsibility, and the blurry line between fictional narratives and personal attacks in hip-hop culture.
The response also criticized Drake’s claim “Not Like Us” constitutes “second-degree harassment” and promoting the song goes against general business law in New York. Similar cases in the music industry have typically favored artistic expression, with courts historically reluctant to interpret lyrics as literal statements.
“Less than three years ago, Drake himself signed a public petition criticizing ‘the trend of prosecutors using artists’ creative expression against them’ by treating rap lyrics as literal fact. As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, ‘[t]he final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination,’ ” the document stated. That petition sought to protect rap lyrics from being used as evidence in criminal trials.
“Drake was right then and is wrong now. The complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar. The court should grant UMG’s motion and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.” UMG is one of the largest music companies in the world, representing thousands of artists globally.
UMG’s ‘desperate ploy’
Drake’s attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb, accused UMG of trying to use a “desperate ploy” to “avoid accountability.” Industry analysts suggest this legal battle could influence how record labels navigate artist conflicts in the future, potentially establishing new protocols for content moderation.
“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 told People magazine. The lawsuit alleges specific instances where fans took the lyrical accusations literally.
“This motion is 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.” The case is being closely watched by entertainment lawyers and artists’ rights advocates as it moves through the legal system.
