UMG’s Motion to Dismiss Drake’s Lawsuit: Precedents and Appeal

A federal judge dismissed Drake’s defamation lawsuit against UMG Recordings in October 2025, ruling that the lyrics of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” were nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole delivered inside a rap battle Drake himself had escalated. Drake has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where briefing wrapped up in spring 2026 and oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

The case, Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc. (No. 25-CV-0399), was filed in the Southern District of New York on January 15, 2025. Drake — born Aubrey Drake Graham — sued his own label rather than Lamar, arguing UMG had knowingly promoted and profited from a song that publicly branded him a pedophile.¹

What Drake Accused UMG of Doing

The complaint pointed to specific lyrics in “Not Like Us”: “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young,” “Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophiles,” “Tryna strike a chord and it’s probably A-Minor,” and “Just make sure you hide your lil’ sister from him.” Drake argued the “A-Minor” line was a deliberate double meaning on “minor,” and that the song’s cover art depicted his Toronto home marked with icons used to identify registered sex offenders.²¹

The theory against UMG was not that it wrote the song but that it engineered its reach. Drake alleged the label “waged an unrelenting campaign” to push the track, “whitelisting” it on platforms like YouTube and Twitch to remove copyright restrictions and using covert financial incentives to secure streaming and radio placement. The complaint identified three business motives: maximizing revenue from the viral hit, boosting sales across Lamar’s catalog, and devaluing Drake’s brand ahead of his contract renewal. Drake had reportedly signed with UMG for $400 million in 2022.¹³

Drake also alleged real-world consequences: violent incidents at his Toronto home in May 2024, severe emotional distress, and the need to relocate his family. Beyond defamation, the complaint pleaded harassment under New York Penal Law § 240.26 and deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349.¹

An amended complaint filed on April 16, 2025 added allegations tied to Lamar’s Super Bowl LIX halftime show on February 9, 2025 and his Grammy wins for Record of the Year and Song of the Year. Drake called the halftime show “the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist,” and his team pointed to a 430% jump in Spotify streams of the track after the performance.⁴⁵

Why the Court Threw the Case Out

On October 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued a 38-page opinion granting UMG’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). She treated the fact-or-opinion question as a matter of law and applied the three-factor test from Brian v. Richardson: whether the language has a precise, readily understood meaning; whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and whether the full context signals to listeners that the statements are opinion rather than fact.²

Judge Vargas acknowledged that an accusation of pedophilia is the kind of statement that can, in principle, be proven true or false. The case turned on the third factor. Context, she concluded, overwhelmingly told a reasonable listener that “Not Like Us” was opinion.

A Diss Track Is Not a Fact-Finding Forum

The court held that a rap diss track is not a place where audiences expect “thoughtful or disinterested investigation” or “fact-checked verifiable content.” Judge Vargas compared the format to internet comment sections and social media, where a “freewheeling, anything-goes writing style” is the norm. The average listener, she wrote, would not be “under the impression that a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation.”⁶

Drake Invited the Accusation

The songs in the feud, the court held, were “in dialogue with one another” and could not be read in isolation. Judge Vargas pointed to Drake’s own “Taylor Made Freestyle,” in which he used an AI-generated Tupac Shakur voice to tell Lamar: “Talk about him likin’ young girls, that’s a gift from me / Heard it on the Budden Podcast, it’s gotta be true.” Because “Not Like Us” was a direct callback to Drake’s own goading, the court found a reasonable listener would hear the pedophilia references as part of an escalating artistic exchange, not a sober factual accusation.²

Drake’s own broader accusations against Lamar were part of the exchange too. In “Family Matters” he accused Lamar of domestic abuse and questioned the paternity of one of Lamar’s children. UMG had argued in its motion that Drake had also signed the “Protect Black Art” petition, which advocated against reading rap lyrics as “literal fact” — a public position UMG contended undermined the very claim he was now making.⁷

Popularity Doesn’t Change the Analysis

Drake argued the song’s Grammy sweep, Super Bowl performance, and streaming dominance elevated it beyond ordinary artistic expression. The court rejected that. Constitutional protection for artistic expression, Judge Vargas wrote, cannot “vary based upon the popularity [the works] achieve,” and it would be “logically incoherent” for republication to convert a nonactionable opinion into a statement of fact.²

The Other Claims

The court also dismissed the allegations that UMG used bots to inflate streaming numbers and engaged in illegal payola, finding that Drake’s supporting evidence relied on “online comments and unverified reporting.”⁶ The harassment count under New York Penal Law § 240.26 failed because that criminal statute provides no private right of action, and the § 349 deceptive-practices claim was rejected as not consumer-oriented with speculative injuries. Every count was dismissed.⁸

Precedents the Court Relied On

The ruling was not written on a blank slate. Judge Vargas drew heavily on Torain v. Liu (279 F. App’x 46, 2d Cir. 2008), in which the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a defamation claim by a radio personality against a New York City councilman who had called him a “sick racist pedophile” and “child predator.” The remarks followed the host’s on-air threats to sexually abuse a rival DJ’s four-year-old daughter, and the court held the use of “pedophile” was an “entirely warranted expression of opinion” in context.⁹

She also cited Rapaport v. Barstool Sports, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021), which held that statements in a diss track accusing someone of abuse were nonactionable because an ongoing “acrimonious dispute” contextualized them as opinion, and Steinhilber v. Alphonse (68 N.Y.2d 283, 1986), which established that context — the emotional aftermath of a labor dispute in that case — signals to audiences that insults should not be taken as factual.²

The Appeal and Where It Stands

Drake filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on November 12, 2025 and submitted his opening brief on January 21, 2026. His legal team argues that the district court “created a dangerous categorical rule that rap diss tracks can never be actionable.”¹⁰¹¹ Drake also moved to certify a question of state law to the New York Court of Appeals; that motion was referred to the merits panel in January 2026.¹²

UMG filed its response brief on March 27, 2026, arguing Drake was trying to “strip words from their context” and that his position would “critically undermine a highly creative art form built on exaggeration, insult, and wordplay.” The label again emphasized the mutual nature of the attacks, including Drake’s own accusations that Lamar beat his fiancée and had not fathered one of his children.¹³

Two notable amicus briefs were filed on UMG’s side. The UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, & Technology Clinic filed on behalf of thirteen social scientists and legal scholars, arguing that treating rap lyrics as literal fact introduces racial bias into court proceedings and triggers harmful stereotypes.¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶

The appeal (Case No. 25-2758) remains pending. Briefing is complete, amicus filings have been processed, and no oral argument date has been publicly scheduled. The last docket activity was recorded on June 12, 2026.¹²

The Wider Fight Over Rap Lyrics in Court

The appeal lands in the middle of a broader legal conversation about how courts should treat rap lyrics. In 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act, limiting the use of rap lyrics and other creative works as evidence in state proceedings.¹⁷¹⁸¹⁹

Those measures address the criminal-evidence context rather than civil defamation, but the underlying question — how literally to read a rap lyric — is the same one the Second Circuit will now consider on appeal.

1
Courthouse News Service. Drake UMG Defamation Complaint
2
U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Opinion and Order, Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
3
Billboard. Drake Kendrick Lamar Beef Timeline
4
Variety. Drake Universal Defame Kendrick Lamar Super Bowl Grammys
5
The Athletic (New York Times). Drake Defamation Lawsuit UMG Super Bowl LIX
6
Courthouse News Service. Judge Drops Drake’s Defamation Suit Over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us Diss Track
7
Music Business Worldwide. 5 Key Arguments From UMG’s Attempt To Dismiss Drake’s Defamation Lawsuit
8
UCI IPAT Clinic. Clinic Files Amicus Brief in Drake v. UMG Defamation Case
9
Hollywood Reporter. Decisions Roundup: Appeals Courts
10
Rolling Stone. Drake Kendrick Lamar Not Like Us Appeals Defamation Case
11
Musically. Drake Appeals Dismissal of Not Like Us Lawsuit Against UMG
12
Court Listener. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc. Docket
13
Billboard. UMG Responds Drake Appeal Suit Kendrick Lamar Not Like Us
14
UCI IPAT Clinic. IPAT Clinic Files Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Social Scientists and Legal Scholars in Drake v. UMG Appeal
15
Yale Law School. MFIA Clinic’s Brief in Drake Defamation Appeal Draws Widespread Media Attention
16
Music Business Worldwide. Yale Law School Scholars Back UMG in Drake’s Not Like Us Defamation Fight
17
Rolling Stone. Drake Kendrick UMG Court Case Lyrics Art Not Evidence
18
Recording Academy (Grammy.com). Restoring Artistic Protection Act Reintroduced in Congress
19
Rep. André Carson (U.S. House). Reps Hank Johnson and Sydney Kamlager-Dove Introduce Bill To Protect Artists