UMG’s March 27 response brief turns Drake’s defamation appeal into a fight over context, pleading rules, and three separately dismissed claims, a broader position than the headline version online. UMG is not simply saying a diss track can never be defamatory. Its brief argues that New York law requires the disputed lyrics to be read with the forum, tone, language, and surrounding feud in view, then says Drake’s other state-law claims fail for their own reasons.
For anyone following the Drake UMG lawsuit update, this is the useful distinction. Drake’s December 4 appeal hearing will test competing legal arguments already in the record. UMG’s response shows exactly which parts of Drake’s appeal the company wants the panel to shut down.
The company leans heavily on “Taylor Made Freestyle.” Drake used AI-generated voices of Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg on the track and included a line pushing Lamar toward allegations involving young girls. UMG says the later lyrics in “Not Like Us” cannot fairly be stripped away from that exchange.
Drake’s side sees the context question very differently. His appeal argues the district court treated too much outside material as settled fact and assumed too much about what an ordinary listener knew. Goldmidi’s breakdown of the complaint-stage dispute gets into that procedural fight in detail.
UMG also argues the form itself matters. Its brief describes diss tracks as a genre built around insult, exaggeration, competitive escalation, and wordplay. A genre-label bias study on reactions to rap lyrics found identical violent lyrics drew more negative reactions when participants were told they were rap rather than country, which is useful context for why courts have to be careful about assumptions surrounding the genre.
None of this means every rap lyric automatically becomes protected opinion. UMG’s narrower appellate argument is that this particular recording, in this particular feud, used language and circumstances that a reasonable listener would understand as rhetorical combat rather than factual reporting.
UMG says the theory has two problems. First, it argues Drake did not properly develop a separate republication analysis in the district court. Second, the company says the song became massively public almost immediately, making it harder to argue that later performances created a clean new audience detached from the controversy around the record.
The Super Bowl example gets especially specific. UMG argues the performance arrived after huge public attention around the feud and lawsuit, so the setting did not necessarily erase context. It also points out that some other cited public uses played only portions of the song that did not include the allegedly defamatory language.
Here, UMG gives the Second Circuit a narrower route than declaring some sweeping rule about rap battles. The panel can examine whether Drake preserved the republication argument, whether each publication needs a fresh context analysis, and whether the complaint plausibly supports the distinctions he is drawing.
On harassment, UMG says Section 240.26 does not create a private civil right of action. It also argues Drake failed to plead the underlying statutory violation even if a private lawsuit were available. The separate certification fight over that issue is already covered in Goldmidi’s article on why Drake wants New York’s highest court involved.
Section 349 is another separate fight. UMG says the amended complaint does not plausibly allege deceptive conduct, consumer-oriented conduct, and an injury caused by the company. Its brief also revisits Drake’s earlier streaming-bot allegation, noting that the claim was withdrawn from the amended complaint after UMG sent a Rule 11 letter challenging its factual basis.
UMG has more than one route to affirmance on the table. Drake’s reply answers those fallback grounds directly, including the private-right-of-action dispute and the separate pleading elements under Section 349. Reversing the defamation analysis alone would not automatically revive every claim in the complaint.
For anyone following the Drake UMG lawsuit update, this is the useful distinction. Drake’s December 4 appeal hearing will test competing legal arguments already in the record. UMG’s response shows exactly which parts of Drake’s appeal the company wants the panel to shut down.
UMG puts the rap battle back at the center
UMG keeps returning to the same basic point. “Not Like Us” did not arrive as a random accusation dropped into ordinary conversation. It landed near the end of a fast, nasty exchange where Drake and Kendrick Lamar were already trading personal attacks through diss records.The company leans heavily on “Taylor Made Freestyle.” Drake used AI-generated voices of Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg on the track and included a line pushing Lamar toward allegations involving young girls. UMG says the later lyrics in “Not Like Us” cannot fairly be stripped away from that exchange.
Drake’s side sees the context question very differently. His appeal argues the district court treated too much outside material as settled fact and assumed too much about what an ordinary listener knew. Goldmidi’s breakdown of the complaint-stage dispute gets into that procedural fight in detail.
UMG also argues the form itself matters. Its brief describes diss tracks as a genre built around insult, exaggeration, competitive escalation, and wordplay. A genre-label bias study on reactions to rap lyrics found identical violent lyrics drew more negative reactions when participants were told they were rap rather than country, which is useful context for why courts have to be careful about assumptions surrounding the genre.
None of this means every rap lyric automatically becomes protected opinion. UMG’s narrower appellate argument is that this particular recording, in this particular feud, used language and circumstances that a reasonable listener would understand as rhetorical combat rather than factual reporting.
The response attacks Drake’s republication theory too
Drake argues later uses of “Not Like Us” reached people who never followed the original feud. His brief points to major public settings and says those listeners may have encountered the disputed lines without knowing the earlier tracks.UMG says the theory has two problems. First, it argues Drake did not properly develop a separate republication analysis in the district court. Second, the company says the song became massively public almost immediately, making it harder to argue that later performances created a clean new audience detached from the controversy around the record.
The Super Bowl example gets especially specific. UMG argues the performance arrived after huge public attention around the feud and lawsuit, so the setting did not necessarily erase context. It also points out that some other cited public uses played only portions of the song that did not include the allegedly defamatory language.
Here, UMG gives the Second Circuit a narrower route than declaring some sweeping rule about rap battles. The panel can examine whether Drake preserved the republication argument, whether each publication needs a fresh context analysis, and whether the complaint plausibly supports the distinctions he is drawing.
UMG has backup arguments beyond defamation
The Drake UMG defamation appeal gets most of the attention, but UMG’s brief is structured around three dismissed claims. It separately defends the rejection of Drake’s harassment theory under New York Penal Law Section 240.26 and his deceptive-business-practices claim under General Business Law Section 349.On harassment, UMG says Section 240.26 does not create a private civil right of action. It also argues Drake failed to plead the underlying statutory violation even if a private lawsuit were available. The separate certification fight over that issue is already covered in Goldmidi’s article on why Drake wants New York’s highest court involved.
Section 349 is another separate fight. UMG says the amended complaint does not plausibly allege deceptive conduct, consumer-oriented conduct, and an injury caused by the company. Its brief also revisits Drake’s earlier streaming-bot allegation, noting that the claim was withdrawn from the amended complaint after UMG sent a Rule 11 letter challenging its factual basis.
UMG has more than one route to affirmance on the table. Drake’s reply answers those fallback grounds directly, including the private-right-of-action dispute and the separate pleading elements under Section 349. Reversing the defamation analysis alone would not automatically revive every claim in the complaint.
