Universal Music Group Denounces Drake’s Defamation Lawsuit as “Illogical”

Universal Music Group (UMG) has hit back strongly at Drake’s lawsuit, which accuses the music giant of defaming him by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us. In a bold rebuttal, UMG labeled Drake’s claims as “illogical” and accused the rapper of attempting to “weaponize the legal process” to silence creative expression.

In a statement released on January 15, UMG firmly denied all allegations in Drake’s lawsuit, which was filed earlier the same day in a New York federal court. The company emphasized its longstanding commitment to Drake, highlighting the extensive resources and effort it has invested in his career.

“The idea that we would seek to harm the reputation of an artist let alone someone of Drake’s stature is not only untrue but completely illogical,” UMG stated. “We’ve worked tirelessly to support his unprecedented commercial and personal success for years.”

Drake’s lawsuit alleges that UMG knowingly promoted Not Like Us, despite the track containing “false and inflammatory” claims, prioritizing “corporate greed over the safety and well being of its artists.” Specifically, the diss track accuses Drake of being a “certified pedophile,” a statement he claims has tarnished his reputation and endangered his safety.

In its defense, UMG pointed out that Drake himself has frequently engaged in controversial rap battles and diss tracks throughout his career, using bold and provocative lyrics to confront his rivals. The company argued that his lawsuit undermines the very essence of artistic freedom. “Drake has used UMG’s platforms to engage in contentious rap battles, making audacious claims about other artists. To now seek damages for distributing another artist’s music is both hypocritical and an abuse of the legal process,” the statement read.

Drake’s legal filings allege that UMG deliberately amplified a defamatory narrative for profit, a move he claims has irreparably damaged his reputation. “UMG sought to turn Drake into a pariah, exposing him to harassment and harm,” his attorneys asserted. The case not only puts the spotlight on the complexities of managing high-profile artists but also raises questions about the boundaries of artistic expression and corporate accountability in the music industry.