The lawsuit, filed under case number 25-CV-0399 (JAV), centered on Drake’s allegations that UMG committed defamation, harassment in the second degree, and violated New York General Business Law section 349 by promoting Lamar’s song, which contained metaphorical lyrics accusing Drake of pedophilia.
The Canadian rapper claimed the record label bore responsibility for disseminating what he characterized as harmful false statements during their highly publicized 2024 rap battle.
Court documents revealed that Drake’s legal team argued UMG acted with “actual malice” by promoting content they allegedly knew contained falsehoods.
The 38-page opinion, however, emphasized the significant legal hurdles plaintiffs face when challenging creative expression, particularly in the context of artistic feuds where hyperbole and provocative language are commonplace.
Artistic rivalry naturally invites exaggeration, making legal challenges to creative expression particularly difficult to sustain.
“The relationship between a recording artist and their label does not automatically create liability for the label when an artist engages in protected speech, even when that speech is inflammatory,” wrote Judge Vargas in her decision.
The dismissal carries substantial implications for the music industry, effectively limiting record labels’ legal exposure for controversial lyrical content created by their artists.
Music law experts note this ruling reinforces the distinction between an artist’s creative output and a label’s promotional activities.
Both Drake and Lamar maintained recording contracts with Universal Music Group during their feud, which complicated the case’s dynamics.
Despite “Not Like Us” achieving commercial success and becoming a cultural phenomenon, the court ultimately determined that UMG’s promotion of the track fell within standard industry practices and did not constitute knowing participation in defamation.
The ruling highlights important considerations for artists registered with performance rights organizations who seek to protect their reputation while navigating the complex landscape of music rights management.
Legal experts suggest this case serves as a reminder for artists to focus on diversifying their income streams rather than pursuing costly litigation against their labels.
