By: David “G” Kreluer

On March 27, 2026, Universal Music Group filed its 83-page appellate brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to Drake’s attempt to revive his dismissed defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” UMG called the appeal “astoundingly hypocritical.” The fan press ran with that line and stopped there. That is the wrong place to stop.

Here is what actually happened — and why it matters to anyone operating inside hip-hop.

The facts on record

Drake filed the original defamation suit in January 2025 against UMG — not Kendrick Lamar — arguing that his own label distributed a track it knew contained false and damaging accusations against him. U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed the case in October 2025, ruling that “Not Like Us” constituted nonactionable opinion within the context of a rap battle — not a statement of verifiable fact capable of sustaining a defamation claim.

Drake appealed in January 2026, filing a 117-page brief arguing that the dismissal created a dangerous categorical rule — that statements in a rap diss track can never be actionable as defamation regardless of their content, their reach, or the context in which audiences encounter them. UMG responded on March 27 with its own 83-page brief. Drake’s reply is due April 17, 2026, after which the Second Circuit will decide whether to schedule oral argument.

The republication argument — the part everyone missed

Drake’s brief raises one legal argument that received almost no attention in the fan coverage and deserves considerably more. His attorneys argue that “Not Like Us” was not simply a diss track heard by rap battle participants who understood the hyperbolic conventions of the genre. It was repeatedly republished to massive new audiences who had no knowledge of the original feud and no frame of reference for interpreting the lyrics as battle rhetoric.

Specifically, “Not Like Us” was performed at the Super Bowl halftime show, played at the Grammy Awards where it won Record of the Year, and broadcast at the Democratic National Convention. Millions who encountered the song in those contexts had never heard the original exchange between Drake and Kendrick. They had no context. Drake’s legal team argues that when a track leaves the battle space and enters those broadcast environments, the categorical protection the district court applied no longer holds — because the audience receiving it is not an audience capable of recognizing rap hyperbole as such.

That republication argument is the most legally interesting element of the entire appeal. It is the argument that gives Drake’s team their best chance of surviving the Second Circuit’s review. Whether the court agrees is another matter — but any analysis of this case that ignores it is incomplete.

“Drake’s view would critically undermine a highly creative art form built on exaggeration, insult, and wordplay.” — UMG Appellate Brief, March 27, 2026

 

What the fan press is missing entirely

Every outlet covering this story treated it as a rap beef sequel. It is not. It is a case study in the most dangerous position any recording artist can occupy — in active legal conflict with the label that still controls their masters, their distribution, their marketing infrastructure, and their contractual future.

Drake did not sue an adversary. He sued his business partner. UMG is still Drake’s label. UMG is still collecting on his catalog. UMG is still marketing his releases. That is not a rap story. That is a business relationship under extreme structural stress, and the legal filings are the only public window into what that stress actually looks like from the inside.

Consider what UMG’s own public statements have revealed across the course of this litigation. They called the original lawsuit an affront to all artists and their creative expression. They said Drake sued them in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds. They are now calling his appeal astoundingly hypocritical. And simultaneously, in those same statements, they describe their continuing partnership with Drake as a shining example of their work with artists. That is a label doing something very specific — maintaining the commercial relationship in public while dismantling the legal argument in court. Every entertainment attorney reading this has seen that posture before. It is the posture of a label that holds most of the cards and knows it.

The symmetry problem at the center of this case

UMG’s brief points to a fundamental tension in Drake’s legal position that is difficult to argue around. Drake’s own track Family Matters included allegations that Lamar had beaten his fiancée and questioned the paternity of one of his children. UMG’s argument is straightforward — you cannot participate in a rap battle, make serious personal allegations of your own against your opponent, lose that battle commercially and culturally, and then sue your label for distributing the winning response. The court that accepted Drake’s theory of defamation would have to explain why his allegations against Lamar were protected rap hyperbole while Lamar’s allegations against him were actionable false statements of fact. That logical symmetry is the wall Drake’s appeal has to climb.

The legal question that actually matters for the Industry

Drake’s core argument on appeal is more significant than the headlines suggest. If the Second Circuit accepts his position, it would meaningfully expand the legal exposure of rap artists and their labels whenever diss track content escapes the original battle context and reaches mainstream broadcast audiences. Every label’s legal department would need to reassess clearance procedures for releasing diss tracks with serious personal allegations. Every music supervisor placing rap tracks in film, television, or live broadcast environments would face new liability questions.

If the Second Circuit affirms the dismissal — which remains the more probable outcome given the strength of Judge Vargas’s original reasoning — it reinforces existing First Amendment protections for rap as an art form. But it also confirms that artists have no defamation remedy when that protected space is used against them, even when the content reaches audiences who never consented to participate in a rap battle and have no framework for interpreting what they heard.

Neither outcome is without consequence. The industry should be watching the Second Circuit’s decision with considerably more attention than it is currently paying.

What independent artists and their teams should take from this

The structural lesson here is not about defamation law. It is about leverage — specifically, the near-total absence of leverage an artist has when they are in active dispute with the label that controls their career simultaneously.

Drake is one of the highest-grossing artists in the history of recorded music. He has resources, a world-class legal team, and more public visibility than virtually any other artist alive. And he is still, by every observable measure, fighting an uphill legal battle — not because his argument is frivolous, but because the institutional weight of UMG, their control of his catalog and distribution infrastructure, and the basic economics of his continued commercial existence make this an asymmetric conflict he entered by choice and cannot easily exit.

If Drake cannot navigate this dispute on terms favorable to him, the calculus for an independent artist in a dispute with a major label is considerably more stark. The lesson is not to avoid suing your label. The lesson is to understand precisely what you are signing before you sign it — what rights you are transferring, under what conditions, and what remedies you actually have when the relationship breaks down. The artists who navigate these dynamics best are the ones whose attorneys read the contract before the deal closes, not after the beef starts.

The bottom line for rap industry professionals

 

• For entertainment attorneys: the district court opinion, Drake’s 60-page appellate brief, and UMG’s 83-page response together constitute the clearest recent articulation of how federal courts evaluate artistic hyperbole versus actionable defamation in the rap context — and how the republication doctrine may apply when battle tracks reach mainstream broadcast audiences. Read all three primary documents before advising any client on diss track exposure, label dispute strategy, or content clearance for tracks containing personal allegations.

• For managers: the UMG public posture in this litigation — maintaining commercial partnership language while litigating aggressively — is the template major labels use when they hold contractual leverage over an artist in dispute. Understand what that posture looks like so you recognize it on behalf of your clients before a dispute reaches the filing stage.

• For independent label operators: this case is the argument for building artist businesses that do not concentrate all distribution, marketing, and catalog control in a single institutional partner. Diversified infrastructure is not operational inefficiency. It is the structural protection that keeps a business dispute from becoming an existential threat to an artist’s entire commercial existence.

Sources: Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00399 (S.D.N.Y.). Opinion and Order granting motion to dismiss, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, October 9, 2025 — available at nysd.uscourts.gov. Full case docket via CourtListener at courtlistener.com/docket/69546009. UMG appellate brief, Second Circuit, March 27, 2026