Introduction to the Lawsuit
As expected, Universal Music Group (UMG), Drake’s label, has filed a motion to dismiss the defamation lawsuit that the rapper submitted in April. This lawsuit is a result of a long-standing feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, with Drake claiming that UMG deliberately slandered him by promoting Lamar’s song.
Background of the Lawsuit
Drake initially filed a lawsuit against UMG in January, alleging that the label had slandered him by promoting Lamar’s song. In March, UMG filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. However, Drake’s lawyer re-filed a revised complaint last month, focusing on events that have taken place since the initial filing. The revised complaint claims that UMG knowingly allowed Lamar to perform a song that slandered Drake at the Super Bowl and approved the performance at the 2025 Grammy Awards.
Motion to Dismiss Rejected
On Wednesday, the motion to dismiss was rejected again, this time for the revised complaint. UMG’s lawyer argued that Drake had submitted a revised complaint that "obviously eliminated false factual allegations" and that the "new allegations are amazing." However, the court rejected this argument, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Super Bowl Performance
Regarding the Super Bowl performance, UMG’s lawyers wrote that Lamar’s performance did not contain the poem that Drake or his employees claimed was defamatory. They argued that this case is not about the content of Lamar’s lyrics, but rather about Drake’s attack on Lamar’s commercial and creative success.
UMG’s Response
A spokesperson for UMG shared a statement with Diversity, saying that "nowhere in the hundreds of pages written by Drake’s lawyers is there any attempt to acknowledge that Drake himself has written and performed massively successful songs that have equally provocative insults against other artists." This statement highlights the hypocrisy of Drake’s lawsuit, as he has also engaged in similar behavior in the past.
Drake’s Representatives
Representatives of Drake did not respond to Diversity’s request for comment.
UMG’s Arguments
In the 33-page document, UMG extends some arguments that were made in their initial motion to dismiss. The company’s lawyer claims that to justify his defamation claims, anonymous online comments are being used as proof that listeners have taken Lamar’s song as fact instead of art or exaggeration. They argue that "the subjective opinions of a handful of people do not matter, especially where they can be found in anonymous online comments that are notoriously unreliable."
Online Comments
Additionally, UMG’s lawyer finds that Drake has withdrawn his earlier "false allegations" that UMG paid to use bots to stream Lamar’s song. They claim that Drake is now quoting another podcast host who said Lamar used bots, and that he is relating to an anonymous X comment that has since been deleted. The lawyer argues that courts reject such online comments because they do not make the underlying factual claims plausible.
UMG’s Statement
In a statement to Diversity, UMG continued: "Drake’s lawyers can always try to uncover evidence of wild conspiracies about why a song that has annoyed Drake has had a massive global attraction, but there is nothing to ‘uncover.’ Apart from the fact that we work tirelessly with our artists to achieve global success for you and your music."
Discovery Process
Despite UMG’s motion to dismiss the revised complaint, the discovery process in the lawsuit has not yet slowed down. At the beginning of April, a judge refused to halt the discovery process and allowed Drake to apply for access to documents, including Lamar’s contracts with the label.
