As expected, the Drake label, Universal Music Group, participated in a request for the rejection of the rapper’s modified pursuit for defamation which he filed in April.
Drake filed his initial pursuit against the UMG in January on “Not like Us” by Kendrick Lamar, saying that the label intentionally engaged in defamation by promoting song. In March, the UMG filed a request for rejection. Last month, Drake’s legal advisor has repressed a modified complaint to focus on the events that have taken place since the initial deposit, saying that the UMG had knowingly negotiated and promoted “not like us” via the performance of the Lamar Super Bowl and agreed to the track played at the Grammy Awards 2025.
On Wednesday, the UMG again filed its disappointment, this time for the modified complaint, now largely the arguments of the initial request while relating to the most recent complaints presented in the updated complaint. The company’s lawyer began by declaring that Drake had filed a modified complaint where he “deleted false factual allegations” and said that “the new allegations were amazing”.
Regarding the performance of the Super Bowl, UMG lawyers wrote: “As Drake concedes, the performance of the Lamar Super Bowl did not include the words that Drake or his associates are certified pedophiles” (that is to say the “alleged defamatory material” which is at the heart of this case). Pedophiles – leads to this case for what it is: Drake’s attack on the commercial and creative success of the rap artist who defeated him, rather than the content of Lamar’s words. »»
In a declaration at VarietyA spokesperson for the UMG has shared: “Nowhere in the biggest page” Legal ”, written by Drake’s lawyers, they take the trouble to recognize that Drake himself wrote and interpreted massively successful songs containing this equally provocative exchange for other artists. “Demen” even if he engages exactly in the same form of creative expression. »»
Drake’s representatives did not respond VarietyComment request.
Throughout the 33 -page document, examined by VarietyUMG extends some arguments presented in their initial request for dismissal. The company’s lawyer says that for Drake to justify his defamation complaint, he “gave in” anonymous online comments as proof that the listeners took “not like us” as does instead of art or hyperbole. They argue that the “subjective opinions of a handful of people do not take into account, especially where – as here – they are in anonymous online comments, which are notoriously unreliable.”
Beyond that, UMG’s lawyer notes that Drake had withdrawn his previous “false allegations” that UMG paid to use boots to distribute “not like us”, as indicated on a podcast. They claim that Drake now quotes another podcast host who said that Lamar used bots, and that he is based on an anonymous anonymous comment since deleted accusing Lamar of having “bought a promo” from “clown (Drake’s Law)” and another article saying that UMG and Lamar used a Bot diffusion. “The courts reject such a plea online on the comments because online comments” absolutely fail to make plausible “the underlying factual affirmations,” they wrote.
In their declaration at VarietyPursued UMG: “Drake’s lawyers can also continue to try to” discover “evidence of wild plots to explain why a song that has turned Drake upset has had a massive world attraction, but there is nothing to” discover “. Except for that: by working tirelessly in the partnership with our artists, we obtain worldwide success for them and their music.
Despite the UMG request to reject the modified complaint, the discovery in the pursuit is still in progress. In early April, a judge rejected the UMG’s request to suspend the discovery process and allowed Drake to proceed by requesting access to documents, including Lamar contracts with the label.
