Drake’s lawsuit connected to Kendrick Lamar is not actually against Lamar. In January 2025, Drake — legal name Aubrey Drake Graham — sued Universal Music Group in federal court over UMG’s role in distributing and promoting Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” which accused Drake of pedophilia. A federal judge dismissed the case in October 2025, ruling the lyrics were protected opinion rather than statements of fact. Drake has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where briefing is now complete and a ruling is pending.
Why Drake Sued UMG Instead of Kendrick Lamar
Drake and Lamar share the same corporate parent. UMG owns Interscope Records, Lamar’s label, and Republic Records, which has distributed Drake’s music for over 16 years.1Forbes. Labels Are Not Like Us: Lessons From the Drake-UMG Lawsuit Rather than sue Lamar personally, Drake’s legal team targeted the label as the publisher and promoter of the track.
The complaint framed a business motive behind UMG’s alleged conduct. Drake alleged that UMG sought to devalue his brand as his contract neared its end in 2025, giving the label leverage to force him into a new deal on more favorable terms. He also alleged UMG was eager to impress Lamar, who had signed a short-term deal and needed to see UMG “prove its value.”1Forbes. Labels Are Not Like Us: Lessons From the Drake-UMG Lawsuit
The case was filed on January 15, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Aubrey Drake Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., Case No. 25-CV-0399, before District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas.2CourtListener. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc. Docket
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The 81-page complaint identified specific lyrics from “Not Like Us” as defamatory, including “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young,” “Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles,” and a reference to “A-Minor” that Drake characterized as a veiled allusion to minors. He also cited lyrics calling him a “predator” who should be placed on a “sex offender list” and the line “you better not ever go to cell block one,” which he read as a threat about what would happen to him in prison.3U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Opinion and Order
Beyond the lyrics, Drake pointed to visual materials. The cover art featured his actual Toronto home overlaid with symbols associated with law enforcement identification of sex offenders, and the music video included imagery he said was associated with sex trafficking.4Courthouse News Service. Drake v. UMG Defamation Complaint
The Promotion Allegations
Drake alleged that UMG used “every tool at its disposal” to make the track go viral while knowing it contained false accusations. Specific tactics described in the complaint included removing copyright restrictions on YouTube and Twitch to “whitelist” the song for republication, covertly offering financial incentives to third parties to stream and play the track without disclosing the payments, and using licensing rights to place the song at nationally televised events including awards shows and political gatherings.4Courthouse News Service. Drake v. UMG Defamation Complaint The complaint also alleged that UMG deployed bots to inflate streaming numbers.5NBC News. Drake Files Federal Lawsuit Accusing UMG of Defamation
Drake sought compensatory damages for reputational harm and lost earnings, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief to prevent UMG from continuing to promote the material. No specific dollar amount was stated in the complaint.
Real-World Harm Cited in the Complaint
The lawsuit pointed to a series of incidents at Drake’s Toronto property in the days after “Not Like Us” was released. On May 7, 2024, at approximately 2:00 a.m., a security guard standing outside the gates of Drake’s mansion in the Bridle Path neighborhood was shot and hospitalized with serious injuries. Toronto police said at the time that it was “too early” to determine whether the shooting was connected to the feud.6Reuters. Security Guard Wounded in Shooting at Rapper Drake’s Toronto Mansion The cover art for “Not Like Us” featured a satellite image of that same property.7Rolling Stone. Drake Uninjured in Shooting at Toronto Home On May 8, an intruder was apprehended on the property under Ontario’s Mental Health Act. On May 9, a second intruder breached the property and had an altercation with security guards before being hospitalized.8The Independent. Drake Toronto Mansion Intruder Drake’s suit cited these incidents as evidence that UMG’s promotion had real-world consequences, alleging they forced him to withdraw his son from school.5NBC News. Drake Files Federal Lawsuit Accusing UMG of Defamation
The Amended Complaint
In April 2025, Drake amended the complaint to address Lamar’s performance of “Not Like Us” at the Super Bowl LIX halftime show. The amended filing alleged the performance reached over 133 million viewers and was “orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist.” His lawyers noted that while the word “pedophile” was censored from the broadcast, the performance still conveyed the song’s “central defamatory meaning” and caused a 430 percent spike in Spotify streams the following week.9Los Angeles Times. Drake Amends UMG Defamation Suit to Reference Not Like Us at the Super Bowl The amendment also cited Lamar’s Grammy performance as another event that re-amplified the alleged defamation.10ABC7 News. Drake Lawsuit Against UMG Includes Super Bowl and Grammy Allegations
UMG’s Defense
UMG moved to dismiss the lawsuit in March 2025, arguing that the lyrics were “a series of hyperbolic insults” consistent with the “lingua franca of any hip-hop feud” and that diss tracks are “a popular and celebrated artform centered around outrageous insults.” The label contended that Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated” and was using the courts in a “misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”11The New York Times. UMG Response to Drake Lawsuit
UMG pointed out that Drake had engaged in the same kind of incendiary rhetoric during the feud, including accusing Lamar of domestic abuse and questioning the paternity of his children. The label also highlighted that in “Taylor Made Freestyle,” Drake had used AI-generated voices to taunt Lamar with the words “talk about him likin’ young girls, that’s a gift from me,” effectively goading Lamar to make the very accusations he later sued over.12ABC News. Drake Defamation Case Dismissed
Why the Case Was Dismissed
On October 9, 2025, Judge Vargas granted UMG’s motion to dismiss in a 38-page written opinion. The ruling applied a three-factor test from Brian v. Richardson to distinguish statements of fact from statements of opinion: whether the language has a precise, readily understood meaning; whether the statements can be proven true or false; and whether the full context signals to a reasonable listener that the content is opinion.3U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Opinion and Order
Judge Vargas acknowledged that the pedophilia accusations were specific enough to be proven true or false, satisfying the first two factors. But she held that the third factor, context, was decisive. The song had to be interpreted not in isolation but within the “holistic” context of a 16-day “vitriolic war of words” between the two rappers. In that context, the judge concluded, a reasonable listener would anticipate “epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole” rather than factual reporting.13Billboard. Drake Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us Dismissed by Judge
The ruling turned on several related points. Drake’s own equally extreme rhetoric during the feud reinforced the combative, non-factual nature of the exchange. The court noted that Drake had essentially invited the accusations in “Taylor Made Freestyle.” The judge rejected the argument that the song’s commercial success and repeated performance at major events transformed its lyrics into factual assertions, writing that “constitutional guarantees do not rest on such a flimsy foundation.” And she dismissed the theory that UMG’s promotion and republication of the track created separate liability, calling it “logically incoherent,” because if the original recording was nonactionable opinion, its redistribution could not suddenly make it defamatory.3U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Opinion and Order
Following the dismissal, a UMG spokesperson called the original lawsuit “an affront to all artists and their creative expression” that “never should have seen the light of day.”14BBC News. Drake Defamation Case Dismissed by Judge
The Appeal to the Second Circuit
Drake filed a formal notice of appeal on November 12, 2025, and submitted a 60-page opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on January 21, 2026. His lead appellate attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb, argued that the lower court created a “dangerous categorical rule” that statements in rap diss tracks can never be treated as statements of fact.15Rolling Stone. Drake Kendrick Lamar Not Like Us Appeals Defamation Case The appeal contends that “millions of people” interpreted the claims in “Not Like Us” as factual and that the song’s viral reach created concrete reputational harm and threats of violent retaliation.16Billboard Canada. Drake Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us
Drake’s team also raised a pointed argument about how the legal system treats rap lyrics: if courts routinely admit rap lyrics as evidence of criminal intent in prosecutions, the same lyrics should be capable of being treated as factual assertions in a defamation case. The appeal further alleged procedural errors, including reliance on materials outside the pleadings and inferences drawn against Drake at a stage where his allegations should have been taken as true.17Music Business Worldwide. Drake Pushes Back on UMG at Appeals Court
UMG’s Response
UMG filed an 83-page response brief urging the Second Circuit to affirm the dismissal. The label argued that Drake was trying to “strip words from their context” and that the rap-battle setting was central to interpreting the lyrics as opinion. UMG called Drake’s position “astoundingly hypocritical,” pointing out that he had previously signed a November 2022 petition criticizing the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases. The label also noted that Drake’s original allegation about bot-generated streams had been “directly refuted by the source Drake relied on,” leading him to withdraw and correct that claim.18Music Business Worldwide. UMG Fires Back at Drake Appeal Over Not Like Us Lawsuit Dismissal
The Consent Argument
In April 2026, the Media Freedom and Information Access clinic at Yale Law School filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and University of Florida law professor Lyrissa Lidsky, offering an alternative ground for affirming the dismissal. The brief argued that Drake “explicitly invited” the pedophilia accusations by goading Lamar in “Taylor Made Freestyle” to “talk about him likin’ young girls,” and that Drake’s own subsequent track “The Heart Part 6,” in which he said “this Epstein angle was the shit I expected,” demonstrated that he anticipated and consented to the nature of Lamar’s response. Under New York law, the brief argued, consent is an “absolute bar” to a defamation claim.19Yale Law School. MFIA Clinic’s Brief in Drake Defamation Appeal A separate amicus brief was filed by a group of rap scholars led by researcher Charis Kubrin, analyzing diss tracks as a tradition built on hyperbole and insult.20Music Business Worldwide. Amicus Brief on Behalf of the Floyd Abrams Institute
Where Things Stand
Drake filed his reply brief on April 17, 2026, and briefing in the Second Circuit is now complete. The appellate docket does not yet reflect a date for oral arguments, and no ruling has been issued.21CourtListener. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc. – Second Circuit Docket
The inconsistency Drake’s team is pressing on appeal reflects a broader debate. Researchers have identified more than 820 instances of creative works being used as evidence in criminal trials as of 2025.22Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove. Kamlager-Dove and Johnson Introduce Bill to Protect Artists’ First Amendment Rights The Restoring Artistic Protection Act, a bipartisan federal bill reintroduced in July 2025, seeks to limit the admissibility of creative expression in both criminal and civil proceedings and would require prosecutors to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that an artist intended their work to be interpreted literally. The bill remains under congressional review.