‘A Dangerous Precedent’: Oral Arguments Set for December in Drake’s Lawsuit Appeal Over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us

NEW YORK — The legal showdown between Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) over the release and promotion of Kendrick Lamar’s blockbuster diss track Not Like Us is heading to oral arguments before a panel of federal judges this winter.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has officially scheduled oral arguments for 4th December 2026, marking the final procedural step before the appellate court decides whether to reinstate Drake's high-stakes litigation.

The Canadian rap superstar, born Aubrey Drake Graham is appealing a court decision that dismissed his lawsuit alleging defamation, harassment, and deceptive business practices against the music conglomerate.

The Legal Origins of the Battle

Drake originally initiated legal proceedings against UMG in early 2025 following the global commercial juggernaut of Lamar's Not Like Us. The suit argued that the label engaged in illegal pay for play schemes (payola) and deceptive marketing to artificially amplify the track. While asserting that the song's lyricism crossed the line into actionable defamation.

However, in October 2025, US District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas granted UMG’s motion to dismiss the suit prior to trial. In her ruling, the judge determined that statements made within the context of a rap diss track constitute non actionable artistic opinion rather than verifiable assertions of fact.

Drake’s legal team filed an immediate notice of appeal, arguing that the district court created an "unprecedented and overbroad categorical rule" that effectively shields artists and record labels from liability whenever defamatory statements are framed as rap lyrics.

"The court effectively created an unprecedented and overbroad categorical rule that statements in rap diss tracks can never constitute statements of fact," Drake’s appellate filing asserts. "This ruling creates a dangerous loophole where any entity can publish devastating falsehoods as long as they put them over a beat."

Major Constitutional and Industry Stakes

The upcoming December hearing has attracted significant interest from constitutional scholars, social scientists, and music industry groups.

Legal scholars, including constitutional expert Professor Lyrissa Lidsky alongside the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School, have filed amicus briefs supporting UMG. Their briefs urge the Second Circuit to affirm the lower court's dismissal, warning that allowing defamation suits over competitive rap lyrics would cripple artistic expression and spawn endless litigation in the music sector.

Conversely, Drake’s representatives maintain that major record labels should not be permitted to financially profit from algorithmically amplifying unverified defamatory claims against their own contracted roster artists.

Decisions Expected Ahead of 2027

With both parties having finalized written briefs, the December 4th oral arguments will give attorneys for Drake and UMG a final opportunity to address the appellate judges directly.

A formal written decision from the Second Circuit panel is expected to follow in early 2027, which will determine whether Drake's claims proceed to a full jury trial or are permanently thrown out.