In a legal smackdown that's increasingly sounding like a verse in some cold-blooded diss track than anything like a typical court case, Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) are going head-to-head over one of the most cruel rap beefs in recent history.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York on Monday, June 30, 2025, with Drake suing UMG over Kendrick Lamar's superheated hit, "Not Like Us." It's the latter that's of particular interest to the media right now, and more specifically, we're talking about Lamar's line accusing Drake of being a "certified pedophile," which has turned lyrical heat into legal fire. Drake's attorneys contend that the insult crossed the line of lyrical sparring and constituted libel, and that UMG, by marketing the track, contributed to the sullying of Drake's reputation.
Check This Article Also: Cardi B Unleashes Symbolic Teaser for "Am I the Drama?"
"Trash-talking at its worst is what you hear in these rap battles," UMG's attorney told the court. "No, it is not, and should not be treated as, statements of fact." In other words: it's showbiz.
And the label's lawyers have been emphasizing the culture of rap beefs, in which these kinds of lyrical jabs, no matter how catty, are typically perceived as entertainment, not assertions of fact. And they say Drake knows how to play the game, and he's thrown lyrical punches, too. Now that he's catching one, UMG says, he can't suddenly cry foul.
But the judge, Jeannette Vargas, wasn't letting either side off the hook. She challenged both groups with a question at the heart of the issue: When it comes to a diss track, how should the average person take it? The average audience catching all that cultural context and those metaphors, or interpreting something like "certified pedophile" directly?
"There is so much specialized and nuanced to these lyrics," Judge Vargas said, raising eyebrows in the courtroom. No ruling has been made; however, proceedings and discovery are pending, meaning Drake's team will have an opportunity to review UMG's internal documents, including Kendrick's contract.
And that legal fight stretches further than just lyrics. They also point to shady practices at UMG, from which Drake allegedly suffers: the label is reportedly pumping up stream numbers with bots and other manipulations. The argument is that this undercuts artists at large by reducing their per-stream payouts, according to attorney Moe Gangat, who was in the courtroom during the hearing.
Would this apply to all artists on labels that employed such tactics?" Vargas asked, to which Drake's lawyers replied that it would. If true, that allegation could crack open a much broader industry problem.
As the drama unfolds, neither Drake nor Kendrick has yet to testify, allowing their surrogates to make their case on their behalf, at least for now. But also in a genre where beef is traditionally a matter of words, this one's happening in the courtroom, and no one knows who gets the last word.
0 Comments