Drake Defamation Lawsuit Explained: Why Sue the Label vs. the Artist

Even with the dismissal of Drake’s defamation suit against Universal Music Group (UMG), it still highlights the liability of a corporate entity for distributing potentially defamatory content. Drake’s approach of going after his label vs. Kendrick Lamar directly raises questions about the scope of a label’s responsibility under defamation law and the boundaries of creative expression protected by the First Amendment.

Why Sue UMG and Not Kendrick Directly?

Although the words of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” played a vital role in this defamation suit, Lamar wasn't named as a defendant. Drake instead targeted the corporation that approved, promoted, and profited from the song—instead of the artist who penned the lyrics. Drake stood at the center of this legal battle as both plaintiff and one of music's biggest commercial forces. His decision to sue UMG—his own label for over 16 years—instead of Kendrick Lamar directly, could attribute to a few reasons:

• Drake was using the lawsuit as a bargaining chip in a possible renegotiation of his current label deal with Republic Records (owned by UMG).
• UMG could be perceived as a less sympathetic defendant than Kendrick in the context of a jury trial.
• He thought suing UMG would be less likely to subject him to an unpleasant and probing deposition than Kendrick and his team would.

Universal Music Group found itself in the unusual position of being sued by one of its top artists and warned that allowing the case to proceed could create a deep effect on artistic freedom throughout the music industry.

Distinct Legal Issues in Artist vs. Label Suits

Suing a label—rather than the artist—focuses on whether the corporation, as a distributor and promoter, can be held accountable for reputational harm arising from artistic works. The claim, which alleged UMG knowingly profited from and amplified false allegations against Drake, attempted to expand the concept of “actual malice” to encompass corporate behavior during promotional campaigns, not merely the act of authorship.

Judicial Reasoning and First Amendment Protections
However, in October 2025, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed Drake’s claims,ruling the lyrics constituted artistic opinion rather than provable statements of fact. Legally, the context of hip-hop diss tracks—marked by exaggeration, competition, and non-literal rhetoric—prevents courts from treating such lyrics as actionable defamation. First Amendment doctrine was decisive here: the court held that imposing liability on either artists or labels for provocative artistic statements would unduly limit free expression.

What This Means for the Music Industry

Precedent Set for Artist-Label Disputes
The dismissal establishes that labels can promote provocative content from one artist without facing defamation liability from another, even when both artists are on the managed by the same entity. This gives labels more confidence to support competitive creative expression without constantly worrying about legal blowback.

However, Drake's claim that UMG prioritized profit over artist well-being signals likely pressure on labels to reconsider their duty of care. In future disputes, labels could face reputational challenges if artists allege harm from promoted content, even if courts ultimately protect creative expression.

The ruling may also deter artists from resorting to litigation in creative disputes and encourage private negotiation instead. Labels can now point to this precedent to get similar lawsuits dismissed quickly. The dismissal with prejudice is particularly significant—it signals that these types of claims face such fundamental legal obstacles that even amended complaints potentially won't overcome First Amendment protections.

Impact on Defamation Law in Entertainment and Music
This ruling further indicates what constitutes "statements of fact" versus "protected opinion" in lyrics. Creative exaggeration, hyperbole, and metaphor in hip-hop are now more firmly protected as artistic expression rather than factual claims. First Amendment protections strongly guard artistic works such as songs, especially in genres where exaggeration and "rap battles" are understood as performative rhetoric rather than assertions of fact.

Some experts caution that even favorable precedent for artistic freedom doesn't eliminate all risk. A ruling that clearly establishes boundaries helps, but cases with different fact patterns may still proceed if plaintiffs can demonstrate actual malice or show that statements weren't obviously hyperbolic.

The ruling also provides guidance on how diss tracks balance First Amendment rights with reputational harm. Courts will continue to give significant weight to genre norms and cultural context when evaluating whether artistic works cross into actionable defamation.

Lessons for Other Artists in Contractual Disputes

Artists need to understand the music law landscape before resorting to litigation over creative content. Courts are extremely protective of artistic expression, particularly in genres with established traditions of provocation and competition. Drake's case demonstrates that even when allegations are as serious as accusations of pedophilia, the odds of success are unlikely if those allegations appear within a diss track or other recognized form of artistic expression.

Contracts should also be carefully reviewed by artists to understand what legal remedies are actually available when disputes arise. Many recording agreements include arbitration clauses or other provisions that limit an artist's ability to pursue certain types of claims in court.

Understanding these contractual limitations before filing suit can prevent wasted resources and damaged relationships.

Conclusion

Drake’s suit dismissal against UMG marks a critical legal development for defamation in the music industry. The decision affirms the protections of the First Amendment for both creators and distributors of artistic works, while clarifying the limits of creative context.

If you are facing a defamation matter—whether you're a singular artist or a business owner—our firm can assist. Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP specializes in internet, technology, and digital media law, bringing over 20 years of experience navigating complex legal challenges. We provide practical, business-oriented solutions tailored to the internet, technology, and digital media industries, recognizing that the legal landscape surrounding artistic expression requires both constitutional expertise and industry knowledge. Don't navigate these complex areas alone when guidance is available. Contact us today through our online submission form.

FAQs

Why did the judge dismiss Drake's defamation lawsuit against UMG?

• Federal Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled that the lyrics in Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" were "nonactionable opinion" protected by the First Amendment. The court found that no reasonable listener would interpret the inflammatory statements in a diss track as factual assertions, given the established norms of rap battles can involve hyperbolic and provocative language. The genre context was critical to the dismissal, with the court emphasizing that audiences understand these performances as artistic competition rather than factual reporting.

How much money did Drake seek in his lawsuit against Universal Music Group?

• Drake’s complaint did not specify a particular amount of monetary damages. Drake sought compensatory damages “in an amount to be determined at trial” for alleged harm to his reputation, lost earnings, and destroyed business opportunities. He also requested unspecified punitive damages and demanded that UMG cover all legal costs and attorneys' fees associated with the litigation. Additionally, Drake sought injunctive relief to prevent UMG from continuing or repeating alleged defamatory statements.

Can artists successfully sue over lyrics in diss tracks?

• Successfully suing over diss track lyrics is extremely difficult. Courts provide broad First Amendment protection to artistic expression, especially in genres like hip-hop where exaggeration and provocation are foundational. Artist defamation lawsuits rarely succeed because plaintiffs must prove statements were factual assertions rather than opinion, demonstrate actual malice, and overcome the presumption that listeners understand diss tracks as entertainment rather than documentary truth.

Why did Drake sue UMG instead of Kendrick Lamar directly?

• Drake strategically targeted Universal Music Group, his own label, rather than Kendrick Lamar. By suing the corporation that approved, promoted, and profited from "Not Like Us," Drake attempted to hold the label accountable for prioritizing profit over his image and well-being. This approach also may have been related to contract negotiations - Drake’s complaint explicitly acknowledged that his contract was up for renegotiation in 2025 and argued that UMG exploited the diss track to diminish his commercial value at the bargaining table, though Drake’s decision to direct his complaint at UMG rather than Kendrick can be viewed as a bargaining tactic in its own right. The strategy, however, faced significant legal obstacles because labels are typically treated as distributors of artistic content rather than publishers of factual claims.

What does this ruling mean for future artist disputes in the music industry?

• The ruling establishes that labels can promote provocative content without facing defamation liability from other artists, even when both are on the same roster. This gives labels confidence to support competitive creative expression while signaling to artists that litigation over diss tracks is unlikely to succeed. However, the case may prompt artists and labels to renegotiate contract terms regarding content rights, dispute resolution, and how labels handle conflicts when their own artists battle each other. The dismissal with prejudice indicates that courts will continue giving significant weight to genre conventions and First Amendment protections when evaluating similar claims.